Loved by fellow musicians - hated by critics and "hipsters"

More "Let's talk about" than C/D, S/D, really.

But anyway, you know, Toto, Chicago, lots of prog and "fusion". What is it about this thing, and why do musicians' tastes vary so much from other "experts" that are not musicians themselves. I mean, what musicians do have in common with critics and hipsters is a huge interest in music and some kind of "expertise" over music that the man on the street doesn't possess in the same way. But why do they disagree so much over these acts?

I don't think that hipsters have any interest in music, it's simply a convenient means for them to be seen as "hip".

art vs. craft

Well, the musicians you're talking about are more interested in playing music than listening to it. So they get a kick out of more technical things - like, I dunno, ultra-fast hammer-ons, complex harmonies, or funk played in a rock way (or vice versa) - that are either unnoticeable if you're taking the track as a whole, or are just plain miserable to listen to. Critics are looking for something else - excitement or novelty or whatever - which doesn't necessarily correspond to the technical merits of the playing, and which Toto or Chicago do not possess. (Many people on ILM may like music for similar reasons, Geir, which may go some way to explaining why they sometimes hold a different opinion to you). Does that answer your question?

or what treblekicker said

Just last night I was thinking that I tend to be interested in different music as a *guitar player* than I do as a *muso* or whatever the fuck I am, and it got me thinking. In my *critical mode* I think of a band less as a collection of musicians playing instruments (like technicians) and more as the source of an aesthetic or sound (ie artists).

I realize this is a completely bullshit dichotomy as there is no art without technique/non-technique-as-technique, but the fact that I switch back and forth between the conceptual channels was interesting to me: I usually listen to death metal thinking "damn that is an incredible riff," I usually listen to (say) Fleet Foxes thinking "that hits in the chest!"

deezhoos

Yes, all musicians like prog, Toto, Chicago.
Good base assumption, Geir A+ would read again.

But anyway, you know, Toto, Chicago, lots of prog and "fusion". What is it about this thing, and why do musicians' tastes vary so much from other "experts" that are not musicians themselves. I mean, what musicians do have in common with critics and hipsters is a huge interest in music and some kind of "expertise" over music that the man on the street doesn't possess in the same way. But why do they disagree so much over these acts?

none of this is true

what about musicians who are also critics?

how about hipster musicians? what about hipster critics?

or HIPSTER-MUSICIAN-CRITICS

which describes like 60% of ILM

max comes to wreck

Musicians who are also critics tend to be liked by critics who are not musicians but not by critics who are musicians because they can tell their music is rather critic-y, right?

everyone's a critic

yeah Geir the dudes that come into my guitar shop are always talking about how much they love Toto and fucking Chicago.

you are completely insane

ILM is mostly comprised of HIPSTERS-HOLDING-FISH

Great thread.

hipsters and critics hate prog because they want you to suffer.

i thought everyone liked toto

people who say they like toto don't have any interest in music, it's simply a convenient means for them to be seen as "prog".

Chicago were approved by Critics and Hipsters until they stopped being a marginally above average jazz-rock-soul band and started doing gloopy Cetera-led ballads.

the dune soundtrack is tite

pa-na-nah-nah-naaaaaaaaaaah-pah-PAH

Sid Vicious was into Chicago, I believe

Chicago were approved by Critics and Hipsters until they stopped being a marginally above average jazz-rock-soul band and started doing gloopy Cetera-led ballads.

This happened gradually, you know. Already on their second album, there were some of those ballads. And generally, only the debut has found some place in the critical canon.

which would prove his point

ok geir what's your theory about this alarming conflict

And yes, of course there are various types of musicians, but in this case, when I say musicians, I mean people who are some kind of "musos". Either with musical education or sort, or with long experience as musicians within different styles, maybe as session players etc. They are the ones who tend to read mags for professional musicians, and more than other musicians, the one who will identify themselves as "musicians".

They are obviously about average technically (or composition-wise) themselves, and often tends to admire stuff that is technically even better than their playing, or composition-wise even more sophisticated with more complicated chords etc.

So far, so good. But why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

Their credibility was shot to pieces after Terry Kath.

I mean, surely, they will often be united over Steely Dan, but even in the case of Steely Dan, critics tend to ignore their technical perfection and get into them more because of their bizzare sense of humour, the "dark" quality of the music and lyrics, and stuff like that.

So far, so good. But why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

Because you can't here them on the record?

Their credibility was shot to pieces after Terry Kath.

I think even most professional musicians will agree with you about that. I mean, it isn't like they go on about how "You're The Inspiration" and "Hard To Say I'm Sorry" are such fantastic musical masterpieces. :)

So far, so good. But why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

Because you can't HEAR them on the record?

There's so much painfully immaculate technical perfection on later Dan records like Gaucho that they sound almost like proto-electronica.

"Hold Me Now," the DJ Kaos Happy Hardcore remix of "Hard To Say I'm Sorry," is one of my favourite singles of all time.

man all this thread needs now are some suicide jokes! o wait

In short:

You can appreciate a well made table, but you would love a table that reflects your personality.

Alternatively, it's the differential between postman and poet.

why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

There's the rub. Why do you think it is, Geir?

What people who aren't music musos themselves are often unable to understand is that the personality and the emotions is in the music itself. See also classical music.

Wait, what?

xxp to marcello. yes thank you, I have claimed before that Glamour Profession sounds like Luomo but to poor response,

like those emotional double-hammer-ons in The Final Countdown

blah blah blah tone melody and harmony blah blah blah Genesis blah blah yadda yadda 12 tone the Beatles "Penny Lane" middle eight etc etc etc

You see, what we are trying to say is:....

(sings)
"A chair is still a chair, even when there's no-one there..
But a chair is not a house, and a house is not a home, when there's ..
no-one there...."

I've never cried as much as when I listened to Good Enough by Dodgy

You guys are pedantic.

Dream Theater is probably the best example of this.

What, being pedantic?

no one cares about technical ability except for dorks

no, no. "Musicians"

Is Geir a musician?

what i thought would be in this thread: PHIL COLLINS solo

hipsters love phil collins

no one cares about technical ability except for dorks

there are lots of non-dorky venues for technical ability too

like jazz, church, basically anywhere where it's chops + a point besides just having chops.

but you're right, no one cares about technical ability for its own sake except for dorks. it's nice to have but doesn't matter if it's not used well.

Some would say that any use of technical ability meant it was used well

^^^dorks

why aren't critics able to recognize technical abilities as a good thing to a larger extent than they are?

as someone above said so concisely, it comes down to art vs craft; musicians can, or at least are obligated to, appreciate technical ability due to their inherent interest in the matter. Critics, and hipsters as a faux-extension thereof, often see songs built upon hammer-ons (to give a rather uninspired example) as indulgent, and more to the point, a rage of sound and fury signifying very little, and going nowhere in particular.

"Hold Me Now," the DJ Kaos Happy Hardcore remix of "Hard To Say I'm Sorry," is one of my favourite singles of all time.

A Peel favourite too. 4 years gone tomorrow.

A Carpenter will want to know how that leg was made.

A punter will want to know if it's OK to put coffee cups on it.

I keep thinking of cooking. You could make a million things that were hard to make but actually making the most delicious is key. From my limited experience of going to 3 Michelin Star restaurants, while much of what they do is technically hard, it never stands in the way of making things taste amazing - it's a means to an end.

why is everyone pretending that "musicians love prog and fusion/critics hat it" is true in the slightest.

hate it

I can't think of a better example than Jeff Beck.

You guys never saw the Chicago "Behind The Music" episode where their manager says "Jimi Hendrix came to me and said: 'man, I've been playing guitar for years, but this guy just blows me away!'"?

When I saw the thread title I immediately thought of Dream Theater. Geir's examples were unfortunate but there is the shadow of a point in there somewhere. I have seen a confusion of "difficult to play" = good" among a certain sort of "music is my bag" type of muso.

In moments of weakness and crushing boredom I used to sometimes read the Pearl drummer's forum; it oozes with love for Dream Theater. Also Rush/Yes/Asia. Not Toto as band but certainly Porcaro as a mulleted demigod. Blah blah polyrhythms, blah rapid changes, blah blazing-fast double-bass-drum work, blah blah weird time signatureszzzzzzzzzz.

Who on planet earth is still interested in J. Satriani and Y. Malmsteen? Apparently no one but yr. Guitar Institute of Technology doodz with '80s hair and zebra-striped Lycra pants.

But Geir says those guys are right

this stuff appealed to me in high school when i was really concerned with learning how to play and didn't have the musical/life experience to really distinguish between corny, soulless displays of chops and the other kind.

"When I saw the thread title I immediately thought of Dream Theater."

same here! loads of metal bands love dream theater. i also thought of tool. but i don't think they are universally hated by critics. i don't like them though. and i'm a critic. and TONS of metal bands that i like LOVE tool.

The two named examples here--Toto & Chicago--produced a number of songs that can be appreciated for hooks rather than chops. I doubt that to the extent they are disliked now it's for their musicianship. It's probably because both slipped into blandness chasing repeat success.

Tool is another example, yes.

Ha, now I have dredged up an old memory of somebody pointing out the arpeggios in "Color My World" as an example of great musicianship- lesser musicians would simply have played the chords.

peter cetera is loved by all hipsters, as he should be

Obviously the initial post is complete toss, but rather (o.k. massive unsupported, shit-stirring generalisation coming) is it that as left brain word Literature Studies writing people, critics are more forgiving of, and more likely to enjoy, virtuoso wordness (Silver Jews, Mountain Goats, Dylan) and a musician is more likely to enjoy, on a visceral level (as opposed to respecting it for difficulty, execution etc), virtuoso musicness, which might explain why they wanted to be musicians in the first place.

I'll never have anything but contempt for Malmsteen, tho.

Ye Mad Puffin, you probably should vote on this thread

But anyway, you know, Toto, Chicago, lots of prog and "fusion". What is it about this thing, and why do musicians' tastes vary so much from other "experts" that are not musicians themselves. I mean, what musicians do have in common with critics and hipsters is a huge interest in music and some kind of "expertise" over music that the man on the street doesn't possess in the same way. But why do they disagree so much over these acts?

Funny RE: Toto

My dad went to High School with guitarist Steve Lukather and my dad recalled times when Lukather would play guitar and and try to point out some of the subtleties of what he was doing but my father, who is very much the man on the street when it comes to knowledge of musical theory and such, just thought "a guitar is a guitar" and pretended to be really impressed though he really didn't see what the big deal was.

Critics and music journalists can be the most meretricious kind of people in the world. The music press can be about championing a certain segment and following market trends, which automatically entails rejecting and maligning others.

Earlier this week I saw a journo comment that ... was this year's greatest "case" for the industry, that is, not the best or most popular group, but the best product.

Critics and their hipster lapdogs also seem to resent any kind of earnestness. Disciplined musicians remind them of the homework they neglected to do.

In the case of Toto - and later period Chicago - my objection against them is not the fact that they are technically great and flawless and "devoid of emotion". I consider that a positive thing. What I would have liked them to do is to do something a bit more musically complex: A few more advanced chords, maybe some more key changes. And perhaps the odd 15 minute suite thrown in here and there. For me, showing off compositional craft/skills is even more than showing off instrumental craft/skills.

Disciplined musicians remind them of the homework they neglected to do.

i agree with this to a degree. i think the real issue is the audience for who the music is made. technically amazing music may not generate a visceral reaction for some who cannot understand the technical mastery required for what is being performed. i played jazz for a long time and my ear was trained by my own technical mastery to listen to little things others did, recognize them and be able to appreciate them. an untrained ear (in the technical sense, not the "i have listened to a bajillion records and can quote any stylistic allusion an artist makes" sense) appreciates things on a different level.

there is some common ground and some not. but critics feel the need to prove there is one type of "good music"

This thread would be much more interesting if someone could think of an artist described by the thread title who is not from the muso/prog/fusion field.

iron maiden?

You know, there is this theory that critics are mostly failed musicians who are writing as some sort of "revenge". It may fit into that theory that they tend to dislike "clever" musicians the most because they dislike people who are "better" than themselves.

just stopping by to reiterate that anyone who buys into this "why does musos peoples always want to prog?" idea is talking out of their ass or completely ignorant or both.

Obviously the initial post is complete toss, but rather (o.k. massive unsupported, shit-stirring generalisation coming) is it that as left brain word Literature Studies writing people, critics are more forgiving of, and more likely to enjoy, virtuoso wordness (Silver Jews, Mountain Goats, Dylan) and a musician is more likely to enjoy, on a visceral level (as opposed to respecting it for difficulty, execution etc), virtuoso musicness, which might explain why they wanted to be musicians in the first place.

not sure about this, virtuoso wordness seems to necessarily imply some kinda substance beyond what the virtuoso musicness of a hundred notes per second or whatever could involve. Maybe there's someone out there trying to be the, uh, Samuel Beckett of indie rock by using the technique and forgetting about the substance (best example I can think of is The Decemberists being criticised for appealing to English students who enjoy knowing semi-obscure words), but it seems a much weirder concept than musicianship for the sake of musicianship...

king crimson comes to mind, but they're an iffy example cuz i think a lot of hipsters and pitchforky critics have at least one fripp-related thing they can point to as cool.

but god, talk about a "musicians' musicians" band.

Ha, Hoos totally answered this for me early on with the post about listening to aesthetics and listening to sheer skill or craftsmanship. I would also add to this complicated, overlapping, spectrum-type situation: listening for things like emotional impact or identification or "resonance." All related to one another, often accomplished through one another, whatever, but they're different aspects one might latch on to.

The following stereotypes aren't really that true:

(a) that critics obsess about aesthetics to the exclusion of skill or emotion
(b) that musicians marvel at skill to the exclusion of aesthetics or emotion
(c) that ordinary fans respond to pure emotion, man, more than aesthetics or skill

Sometimes, though, those emphases do attach to those groups, which only makes sense given their perspectives!

Critics and music journalists can be the most meretricious kind of people in the world.

vision did you get dumped recently or something

NA was wrong about with the dork comment. It's all about geekiness. Don't nearly all the bands mentioned have an almost exclusively male audience?

Critics and music journalists can be the most meretricious kind of people in the world.

vision did you get dumped recently or something

― goole, Friday, October 24, 2008 11:29 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

Haha absolutely not, nothing personal goole. As a matter of fact, I was just thinking about a thread inviting people to cut+paste the best music reviews they have read this year in order to show the good side of music journalism.

consider for a moment that this forum is frequented by, read by, and was founded by, music writers, who may not like, if they give it a thought, being called meretricious, for doing what they do.

playing prog rock or fusion is not the same thing as being a disciplined musician, and doing your homework as a musician is totally different from doing your homework as a writer, about music or about anything else

the idea that "critics," as a class, don't like "earnestness" or aren't earnest themselves doesn't hold up at all.

you seem to have tremendous insight into "hipster lapdogs" however, have you considered writing for adbusters?

goole, consider the conditional "can be"-- obviously only the crooked critics out there are being singled out. This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism (Michael Dirda from the Washington Post often mentions it both in print and in public talks RE the literary world). It is also epidemically widespread in fashion journalism.

Many of us here could compile a thousand-page anthology of outright ignorance and dishonesty in the music press. The whole gonzo thing is probably to blame a little, critics have been excessively empowered in the pre-internet days with no accountability whatsoever.

Music journalists are mostly well-meaning, but they can also be the kind of watchmen who must be watched themselves. The thing is, an unbridled corporate culture often slowly relaxes its general ethic standards, so that a whole professional segment can end up adopting some less than transparent practices simply out of habit and hubris. That's why it's so important to scrutinize trends and opinions in the music press.

Discipline is discipline no matter what field you choose. I find it appalling that some critics do not know what an octave is, they simply can't say this is not their business, it is. Some critics do fake their way through a field which they do not understand.

Yeah, I train hipster lapdogs and turn them into polite, well-groomed bichons frisés.

king crimson comes to mind, but they're an iffy example cuz i think a lot of hipsters and pitchforky critics have at least one fripp-related thing they can point to as cool.

King Crimson were musos to a much lesser extent than Yes/ELP/Genesis were. Thus they were also the prog band that it was acceptable for non-musician hipsters to like. Musicians tend to get into more technically complex stuff though.

looooooooooooool xpost

please to introduce me to some of these "musicians" you know so much about

The following stereotypes aren't really that true:

(a) that critics obsess about aesthetics to the exclusion of skill or emotion
(b) that musicians marvel at skill to the exclusion of aesthetics or emotion
(c) that ordinary fans respond to pure emotion, man, more than aesthetics or skill

I would say there is some truth in it, except aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, and there are a lot of different values when it comes to aesthetics.

And with "musicians" I don't mean people who play music in general. I mean people with either some education in music or with an extremely long experience as session men etc.

That is, typically of most of the biggest stars in the world BEFORE punk.

yeah the classical guitarist that comes in that used to play and record for the Moscow Symphony is a huge Chicago fan, very insightful.

Actually, when classical musicians listen to "rock", they will usually listen to something that is based on roughly the same musical values. It may be critically accepted acts such as Steely Dan, Paul Simon or Peter Gabriel. But it may as well be prog. Or early Chicago (Obv. not 80s Chicago)

Is this thread still going?

im trying to work out the margin of error on your sample group of the zero classical musicians you actually know, will get back to you when i figure it out. xpost

You know, thinking about the actual thread question, the closest answer/example I can come up with is Norah Jones.

The headline here is thought-provoking, but then Geir's elaboration below it colors the question with bias & assumption, thereby steering the discussion in a certain direction - and, explicitly, away from the S/D angle. So people have to choose to respond to either the headline or the headline with the additional explanation. I'm still wondering if there's a non-muso act we can put in this category, and if we can explain them. Perhaps somebody from Broadway?

not sure about this, virtuoso wordness seems to necessarily imply some kinda substance beyond what the virtuoso musicness of a hundred notes per second or whatever could involve. Maybe there's someone out there trying to be the, uh, Samuel Beckett of indie rock by using the technique and forgetting about the substance (best example I can think of is The Decemberists being criticised for appealing to English students who enjoy knowing semi-obscure words), but it seems a much weirder concept than musicianship for the sake of musicianship...

Sorry, I wasn't aiming at the negative aspects (noodle noodle/big words) of either approach, but rather what the artist leaves out by playing to his/her strengths. Before it ever crossed my mind to try to play guitar/sing etc., I was already completely floored by the beautiful noise that left my brain in a puddle on the ground (in Jimi Hendrix songs) or by the angelic voice and ridiculous chords (Jeff Buckley) (which affected me emotionally even though then I didn't know what tricks he was pulling). I didn't give two shits about Jimi's lyrics, for example - I didn't even notice the odd clunky line.

Similarly with someone creaming themselves over beautiful lines and overall concept. They care as much about, say, Bob Dylan's technical vocal prowess, as I care about Jimi's mermaid fantasies. But their predisposed preferences are more likely to lead them into a stint in the local alt. weekly. Furthermore, as 'words' people, (and having a mouthpiece for their views), they are better able to express their views (and hence influence the overall discourse).

Here is a relevant-ish article from a long time ago in a creative field far far away that grazes off some of my points http://www.alistapart.com/articles/marsvenus

HIPSTER-MUSICIAN-CRITICS = this is me.

But I don't care for Chicago, Toto, or Peter Gabriel.

I don't need them though because I have ORTHRELM.

This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism This kind of venal, underhand dealings is present in many if not most types of criticism

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/Reviews/shin/all%20work%20and%20no%20play%20makes%20jack%20a%20dull%20boy.jpg

Putting aside the topic for a moment...I think people are missing a pretty interesting development here. For AGES, Geir has been parachuting into threads and disregarding their premise and people's views based on his values set.

NOW...he's starting threads like this one, that could be very easily interpreted as Geir moving ever-so-slightly toward asking: "AM I MISSING SOMETHING?"

I say this in part b/c while I almost never agree with Geir and am frequently as annoyed as anyone by his unique ability to derail threads, I do also share some frustration with contemporary pop music -- particularly, a concern that certain values that endured for forty-plus years across multiple genres of pop music are being arbitrarily left behind.

And before people complain, it's not inherently reactionary to lament the loss of values -- in pop music or anything else.

For instance, and to pour a little more gasoline on this, I think of it akin to the breakdown of the family that conservatives constantly use to trumpet their right-wing social and economic agenda. While I don't subscribe to that remedy, no matter how much you champion two-earner families (my daughter's a product of one) or single parents (no one works harder), it's ludicrous to argue that they're some kind of substitute for or equivalent alternative to a two-parent family and the attention of at least one loving parent.

Which is a long way of saying that while I don't subscribe to Geir's Stanley Crouch-ian belief that pop music would have been better served had its development frozen in 1974, I do agree that such values as songcraft have declined immeasurably since that time to the clear detriment of all involved. And that's why someone like Geir can derail these threads so successfully and so regularly.

He's like an ILM Jerry Falwell -- albeit without the neck fat.

For instance, and to pour a little more gasoline on this, I think of it akin to the breakdown of the family that conservatives constantly use to trumpet their right-wing social and economic agenda. While I don't subscribe to that remedy, no matter how much you champion two-earner families (my daughter's a product of one) or single parents (no one works harder), it's ludicrous to argue that they're some kind of substitute for or equivalent alternative to a two-parent family and the attention of at least one loving parent.

I agree with your analogy, but not necessarily in the way you intended. I think the nuclear family was essentially a temporary transition between what was normal for much of human history (the extended family) and the many non-traditional setups we have today. Similarly, the "pop age" (1955-?), replacing the folk methods of music transmission that had held for most of human history, was a temporary thing enabled by the massive reach of then-new media held together by a set of common values (3 minute melodic songs etc) before giving way to the cultural fragmentation we now have.

You are completely ignoring classical music, which is what the "media" cared about. Plus pop music didn't start in 1955, it started with Vaudeville in the late 19th century and Tin Pan Alley in the early 20th century.

Folk Music was the old "pop" music.

Folk music was pop for the working class and farmers, classical was pop for the upper and middle class.

Today, most Westerners are middle class.

1) yes 2) yes 3) rubbish.

"Loved by fellow musicians" - debatable at best

Actually, when classical musicians listen to "rock", they will usually listen to something that is based on roughly the same musical values

haha, this is not true at all

King Crimson were musos to a much lesser extent than Yes/ELP/Genesis were.
― Geir Hongro, Friday, October 24, 2008 11:41 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink,

you say so much wrong shit in this thread it's hard to keep up but i didn't want this nugget of bullshit to go through unchecked....fripp and bruford are like the definition of chops dudes! fripp had a LEAGUE OF GUITARISTS and you had to quit playing guitar for like six months before you joined so you could learn his PERFECTED GUITAR TECHNIQUES OF MASTERLY MAGICIAN PLAYING NINJA SECRETS

Creating your own way of playing something rather than learning the accepted traditional way of playing usually takes less schooling and less craft than actually learning to do something like the greats have done before you.

When classic violinist are educated at academies, they don't learn to learn violin in their own way, they are taught to play in as close to the way Paganini did as they can possibly achieve. I don't see why "rock" guitar should be any different.

LOL @ Genesis being more muso-ish than King Crimson! Classic!

The only half-decent musician in Genesis was Phil Collins!

Tony Banks and Peter Gabriel were "Musos" when it came to composition, which is at least as important as technique.

i want to flush your head down the toilet

lawl

Steve Hackett was a pretty shit-hot guitarist, I think?

OMG @ this thread! Who cares what critics, "hipsters" or musicians like?!

Tony Banks and Peter Gabriel were "Musos" when it came to composition, which is at least as important as technique

So it's OK if you're a shitty player as long as you can write songs? Very punk rock.

^^yah totally, Genesis took a lot of inspiration from punk rock, IMHO

When classic violinist are educated at academies, they don't learn to learn violin in their own way, they are taught to play in as close to the way Paganini did as they can possibly achieve. I don't see why "rock" guitar should be any different.

― Geir Hongro, Monday, October 27, 2008 4:25 PM (7 minutes ago)

that's a pretty dumb thing to say.
anyway, this all comes down to art vs craft. end of story.

"illegal alien" was inspired by X's "los angeles"

and zz top

yah and land of confusion takes it's core melody from The Saint's "I'm Stranded"

Geir, if you found out that your favourite musicians weren't trying to copy the styles of these ancient rock guitarists, but were instead just making it up as best they could, would you like them any less?

collins has also been on record as saying "no son of mine" came out of a period where he listened to nothing but side 2 of "my war"

"Mr Hendrix, you have failed to master 'There Is A Tavern In The Town' to the standard set by our beloved Mr Weedon. You are DISQUALIFIED from playing Rock Guitar! Fingers on the chopping board please!"

So it's OK if you're a shitty player as long as you can write songs?

As long as you can compose complex pieces with lots of modulations, mood changes, time changes and fancy chords, yes.

A robot can do that, Geir.

Anyway, Steve Hackett and Phil Collins were definitely technically brilliant instrumentalists. Tony Banks was more of a genius as a composer, while Mike Rutherford has never been either, I guess (just as much as Phil Collins, he was the one who dragged the band in a "poppy" direction, and he also wrote "Your Own Special Way", which was probably their first plain AOR song.

The Douchemaster 5000, to be exact.damn xp

A robot can do that, Geir.

You mean a robot could have composed the most famous works by Beethoven and Mozart?

What do you think of Britten?

Or for that matter, have you heard Daniel Pinkham?

Most "classical" composers from the 20th century are completely uninteresting.

hahahaha you are so dumb

At least from "The Rites Of Spring" onwards, 20th century "classical" music was horrible. Although the ultimate low (Schönberg, Berg, Webern) wasn't many years later.

I mean seriously, how can you harp so much on melodic/harmonic complexity and then accuse the poster children of it of being completely uninteresting? Do you know anything about British choral music, particularly the works of Britten, Howells and Harris?

Britten's "Hymn To St. Cecilia" will completely blow your mind, I promise you. Ditto Howells' "Take Him, Earth, For Cherishing" or "Requiem" or "Faire Is The Heaven" by Harris.

I’m not loving you
Way I wanted to
What I had to do
Had to run from you
I’m in love with you
But the vibe is wrong
And that haunted me all the way home

So you never know
Never, never know
Never know enough
Til it’s over love
Til we lose control
System overload
Screamin no no no no no

I’m not lovin you
Way I wanted to
See I want to move
But can’t escape from you
So I keep it low
Keep a secret code
So everybody else don’t have to know

So keep your love locked down
Your love locked down
Keepin’ your love locked down
Your love locked down
Now keep your love locked down
Your love locked down
Now keep your love locked down
You lose

I’m not lovin’ you
Way I wanted to
I can’t keep my cool
So I keep it true
I got something to lose
So I gotta move
I can’t keep myself
And still keep you too

So I keep in mind
When I’m on my own
Somewhere far from home
In the danger zone
How many times did I tell you
‘fore it finally got through
You lose you lose

I’m not lovin’ you
Way I wanted to
See I had to go
See I had to move
No more wastin’ time
You can’t wait for life
Were just racin’ time
Where’s the finish line

Chorus 1X

I’m not lovin’ you
Way I wanted to
I’ve been no one new
I got no one new
No I said I’m through
But got love for you
But I’m not lovin’ you
Way I wanted to

Gotta keep it going
Keep the lovin’ going
Keep it on a role
Only god knows
If I’ll be with you
Baby I’m confused
You choose, you choose

I’m not lovin you
Way I wanted to
Where I want to go
I don’t need you
I’ve been down this road
Too many times before
I’m not lovin you
Way I wanted to

Chorus 1X

You lose
You lose
You lose
You lose

http://elizs.vox.com/library/audio/6a00c2252aed7b8e1d00d4141ce2336a47.html

Hymn To St. Cecilia

Part of the Howells Requiem

You mean a robot could have composed the most famous works by Beethoven and Mozart?

No, no. Not the famous ones.

Well, I feel that Tony Banks is up there as a composer, but because of current aesthetic values (and also being overshadowed by Peter Gabriel image-wise) he doesn't get the deserved recognition.

Harris - Faire is the Heaven

ooh I should have listened to that entire clip of that last one before posting it, oops

for a bunch of atonal, hopped up punk rock nu-classical noise, that's kinda pretty : )

Yes, Britten isn't among the worst 20th century composers. It isn't like this is the first stuff I heard either. I believe he composed "Young Person's Guide The Orchestra", which is perfectly OK too. But "classical" music still made itself largely irrelevant after Schönberg's 12 tone musings in the early decade and The Beatles are more likely to be remembered (that is, among those who are remembered) as the "classical" music of the 20th century.

Geir, what do you think of Olivier Messiaen?

The Beatles exist in a different paradigm from "classical" composers. We don't consider Duke Ellington "classical" do we?

he's closer to it than the beatles

It's not like I have checked out a lot of 20th century "classical" music as most of it is much too based on free and/or no tonality. I know there are exceptions. For instance, I love Barber's "Adagio".

The Beatles exist in a different paradigm from "classical" composers. We don't consider Duke Ellington "classical" do we?

"Classical" (unless from the "classical" era in the second half of the 18th century) doesn't mean much other than it has proved the ability to survive and appeal to new generations who weren't around at the time. Fans of that particular type of music will often insist that jazz and pop aren't good enough and will not survive, but they have obviously been proved wrong. By Duke Ellington among others.

Although I believe a larger number of current people are familiar with Irving Berlin's and Glen Miller's works than Duke Ellington. But just because they have survived and will remain classic doesn't mean that Ellington will not.

Your characterization of "most" 20th century classical music is wrong, particularly in the arena of choral music. There are certainly bizarre things out there but there is also a ton of ultra-romantic shit like the pieces I posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century_classical_music

Maybe a third of the composers listed here actually wrote the type of music you're complaining about; perhaps you should actually hear them before trying to pretend like you know what you're talking about.

I am aware that choral music is more often tonal than other music in that genre. Obviously particularly because atonal music is extremely difficult for a choir to sing.

The point, actually, is that there is more than one genre under this umbrella, which you would know if you had ever heard it.

But yet, there is no "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", "Air" or "Für Elise" among the 20th century "classical" works. "Bolero" may come close, but then, that one was very early in the century and largely an impressionist work.

Instead, the "Air"s and "Für Elises"s of the 20th century are more likely to be, for instance, "In The Mood" and "Yesterday".

One day my log will have something to say about this.

Well, I feel that Tony Banks is up there as a composer, but because of current aesthetic values (and also being overshadowed by Peter Gabriel image-wise) he doesn't get the deserved recognition.

No, its because he's a quiet person who keeps to himself a lot and isnt a show off like Gabiel and Collins. His solo albums are not fancy shmancy compositions either, they're straight up pop ffs. They have Nik kershaw singing on them!

You're going the wrong direction, Geir; think John Williams and Danny Elfman.

X-Post Varies. You are right in the case of "Still". But his debut album "A Curious Feeling" still had a lot of his characteristic moods and chord changes even though the songs are shorter than before. And on "Strictly Inc." from 1995 there is a lengthy 17 minute track - "An Island Into The Darkness" - that is almost like his prime work with Genesis.

One weakness about Tony Banks as a soloist is also his voice. Surely, he did backing vocals in the 70s and is completely able to hit the notes, stuff like that, but his voice is a bit too "thin" and uncharacteristic to be able to carry lead vocals like it should. Plus, considering Mike Rutherford and Phil Collins hit the charts with really accessible pop stuff, you shouldn't ignore the possibility that his work was sometimes too complex and artistic for his own commercial good. After all, the 80s weren't the 70s.

You're going the wrong direction, Geir; think John Williams and Danny Elfman.

If "Star Wars" survives as a classic movie, John Williams' music will survive as music that people remember. But they will also know very well that they remember it because of the movie.

it seems unlikely that star wars will be remembered as fondly in the future as tony bank's solo album.

lolololololol

One day my log will have something to say about this.

Seems to be as good a thread as any to bring up talking shit

Actually I loved Webern

Geir, the fact that you use such a figure so controversial and disputed WITHIN the "serious music" crowd as Schoenberg as the pinnacle of 20th-century classical tonality is puzzling to me. Schoenberg made a few waves, but he was not as important as you seem to think he was.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GD8N9KWSL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

So it's OK if you're a shitty player as long as you can write songs?

absolutely, why not?
picasso wasn't admired for his technique (i know next to nothing about the nuances of fine arts besides a superficial history, so excuse me if this analogy isn't historically accurate, but i think you get the point), but rather for the ideas, right? anyone can draw a perfect circle, but talents and geniuses have IDEAS. same with music.

http://staff.fcps.net/aaford/art/images/Picasso/Picasso_Guitarist.jpg

No technique there, nosirree.

i think what i meant was that there are many people who could paint that, but few who could envision it.

there are many people who could paint that

uhhh...I suppose you're welcome to try.

see, when people talk abt pre-punk professional musicians, for some reason I always think of Otis Day & the Knights

Um, I'm not backing up Geir's views on classical music generally, but I do see Schoenberg as pretty central within 20th-century music history, even from a Norton Anthology-type perspective. (Could just be the places I've studied though.)

Or did you just mean that there's lots of contemporary art music that doesn't primarily draw on his influence (or on atonality at all)? Then I agree.

I think C meant the latter, as Schoenberg is obv. an important figure in 20th Century music; it's sheer lunacy to point to him as the SOLE GUIDING INFLUENCE of 20th Century music.

Well, yeah.

To answer the title question, many composers from before the 20th century could, at one time or another, lay claim to this title.

For instance, before the Bach revival in the early 19th century, his music was mostly ignored, and when people did pay attention to it, it was often derided as cold, cerebral, craftsmanlike, and whatever the 18th-century German equivalent of "muso" was. Mozart -- Mozart! -- was repeatedly accused of being overly complex and intellectual, and his late work was anything but popular. Much of Beethoven's late music was basically disregarded by the public and press, especially the quartets; it was fellow musicians and composers who caught on first.

By the way, classical musicians totally don't listen to prog, fusion, Toto and Chicago, etc. If they listen to rock and jazz at all (some don't), it's usually pretty mainstream stuff. The younger ones who were born in the '70s and early '80s might listen to "Hard Habit to Break" if it comes on, but if they're going to listen to '80s music, it's going to be Madonna, Michael Jackson, Duran Duran etc.

Also, some of the people who eat up the "corny, soulless displays of chops" the most are the non-musicians! The difference is that it's the LONG corny displays that usually attract the wanker types; short corny "crowd-pleaser" displays show up all over the place.

I'm a classical musician and I listen to The Cure and My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult!

(A lot of classical musicians do listen to prog and fusion!)

"classical musicians" are all very similar, they tend to all come from the same country and speak the same language and have similar cultural backgrounds and i'm sure their tastes and habits are very easy to predict

Really? Very, very few of the ones I know do, and they're usually guitarists.

I guess it depends on what kind of prog/fusion you mean. I can see 1970s Miles, early Genesis, stuff like that, but I don't know too many cellists who dig on Dream Theater and Rush. OTOH Zappa is pretty popular.

xpost Yeah, thanks for the straw men, there

Standing in the Spotlight is the album by Dee Dee Ramone, under the rap moniker Dee Dee King, released in 1989. The album is sometimes considered to be one of the pinnacles of modern culture, while others argue the whole affair was tongue-in-cheek. It also gave Dee Dee Ramone the distinction of being one of the first white rappers.

Dee Dee Ramone's wikipedia pages are um, highly dubious.

straw men are what geir's threads are all about!

True, that.

Dee Dee King album is gr8

YEAH THIS THREAD DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE...BOOKMARK OFF!

haha, well I was TA for the cellist at my school and he's totally into Yes, Crimson, Genesis (as well as some progressive metal like Meshuggah). (Also really into punk rock and noise FWIW.) Yes was generally popular with a number of composition faculty and a lot of students I know. Lot of people I knew into Rush, KC, and Jethro Tull too. Zappa was beyond popular and was a canonized figure.

I mean, obviously, Matt's right and it's difficult to generalize. Certainly what I'm saying doesn't apply across the board or anything. Lots of people aren't into this stuff at all. I'm just, you know, shooting the shit.

You don't even know percussionists who are into Rush?

xposts to Charlie

I think it heavily depends on the scene, and whether (in the case of schools/universities) the department is oriented towards contemporary music or not. I'm mainly thinking of people who play what Geir means by "classical" music, i.e. people who spend their hours practicing Paganini and Mozart and Brahms, not Ferneyhough and Scelsi. When I look at their CD collections, go to their parties, I don't see/hear King Crimson and Yes; it's mostly pop and rock music from the last four decades, with some mainstream jazz like Miles and Coltrane, plus stuff like bluegrass, some alt-country and indie, and geek-rock like TMBG.

It's a different scene with contemporary music specialists, who definitely trend more towards the prog -- but then, a lot of the music they play leans that way anyway, Zappa being a case in point. Part of it is an uptown vs. downtown issue, too (as much as those distinctions apply).

It's worth remembering, too, that certain instrumentalists -- percussionists, guitarists, saxophonists, double bassists -- are mostly going to be playing 20th-century repertoire anyway! That helps to make their tastes diverge from (for example) the violinists and cellists who spend 6 hours a day, 7 days a week on a near-exclusive diet of Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms.

Ah, we're on the same page then. UB's a hardcore 'new music' school. (Even has a Zappa ensemble who sometimes do Beefheart or Crimson or "Tom Sawyer". This would be on the pop end there though.) Yes, your average trad orchestral player probably fits your description. (What is it with TMBG??) Also, a lot of singers seem to have an (understandable) thing for Broadway.

xpost Yeah, also I'm a guitarist and composer.

UB = Buffalo? Ha, I know a lot of people from that neck of the woods. Is the cellist in question J.G.? If so, I've played with him!

Yeah, that's the one. He's great. I supply-taught the prog lecture in his rock class last semester, actually.

Yes, your average trad orchestral player probably fits your description. (What is it with TMBG??)

Most trad players are kinda geeky! Not all of them, obviously, but if you spend a big proportion of your adolescence practicing in solitude, it will have an effect (on top of whatever was there to begin with).

xpost Cool! I had fun playing with him -- I was actually just listening to that recording the other day -- he did some good things with his electric cello. I didn't get to know him well, but I can totally imagine him digging on prog and noise stuff.

(It seems that you and I were nearly classmates, by the way -- I was accepted to UB but went elsewhere -- I don't know when you arrived, but I'd probably still be working on my dissertation.)

Heh, yeah, I'm 'working' on my dissertation while actually, you know, working in Windsor right now. Where'd you go?

Geir is correct in pointing that the 20th century, while it has many experiments, does not realy have lasting, canonical classical music on the same level of previous centuries. Most people are not really likely to listen to Stockhausen in the near future. Perhaps The Lark Ascending and some other pieces will be played here and there, but on a marginal scale.

Of course, there will be (there are) those who would have you believe otherwise saying "hey, I listen to Webern every 2 hours! He's greater than Mozart etc" but believe me, these are just Ubu Web freaks, that is, the old shrill vocal minority with vanguardist affectations that try to push stuff that time and the public end up burying.

The truth in classical music is: you have 100 von Karajans/Mariners for each Boulez, basically because you cannot fake it in classical music.

It's also pretty obvious that people who try to define what kind of pop music classical musicians listen to are naively taking their own social experience for the whole truth.

there are many people who could paint that

uhhh...I suppose you're welcome to try.

― goofus vs. gallant (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:37 PM (3 hours ago)

among those who are professional painters, that is. salieri vs. mozart.

Most people are not really likely to listen to Stockhausen in the near future.

I went to an awesome, very well-attended "performance" of Hymnen about a year and a half ago fwiw

people who try to define what kind of pop music classical musicians listen to are naively taking their own social experience for the whole truth.

I wasn't even pretending to be talking about more than my social experience!

But, I mean, were we doing so more than anyone else on the thread, including the original post?

Sundar, I wasn't talking about you comment, I had this one in mind:

By the way, classical musicians totally don't listen to prog, fusion, Toto and Chicago, etc. If they listen to rock and jazz at all (some don't), it's usually pretty mainstream stuff. The younger ones who were born in the '70s and early '80s might listen to "Hard Habit to Break" if it comes on, but if they're going to listen to '80s music, it's going to be Madonna, Michael Jackson, Duran Duran etc.

Geir, the fact that you use such a figure so controversial and disputed WITHIN the "serious music" crowd as Schoenberg as the pinnacle of 20th-century classical tonality is puzzling to me. Schoenberg made a few waves, but he was not as important as you seem to think he was.

Surely, Stravinsky is probably more widely acclaimed. But even "The Rite Of Spring" is too extreme to be hummed by the man on the street.

Of course that could be said about Mahler, Wagner or Richard Strauss too (all very tonal, yet not too strong on melody). But then, those aren't so often mentioned from the 19th century by others than "experts" anyway. Well, apart from "Also sprach Zarazustra" and overture to "The Ring Of The Nibelung".

Well, apart from "Also sprach Zarazustra"

small caveat for one of the most famous/instantly recognized and overused classical pieces in Western culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Last_Songs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahler_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_the_Valkyries

please please please stop talking out of your ass

there's no point disputing with geir, because he knows less than nothing about classical music, but i didn't think it was possible another poster could appear who could spout equally ignorant bollocks on the same subject. thanks vision.

KILL DA WABBIT

Please enlighten us and elaborate on your erudite observations about what I said about classical music Shacknasty. So far, you namecalling only reveals your stupidity.

"Geir is correct in pointing that the 20th century, while it has many experiments, does not realy have lasting, canonical classical music on the same level of previous centuries."

you got a time machine in the garage or something?

scott no, I've this thing called common sense and historical perspective, try it some day.

i am 99% sure you are a sock.

your common sense tells you what people will be listening to and what will be canonical from the 20th century in a hundred or two hundred years?

"Most people are not really likely to listen to Stockhausen in the near future."

see, common sense tells ME that, if anything, MORE people will listen to Stockhausen in the future. his stock will only rise higher as his grave grows colder. i predict church of stockhausen by 3030.

I find scott's opinions fascinating and would like to subscribe to his newsletter

why, I have already listened to Stockhausen MORE in the last 2 years than in the previous 33 put together!

20th Century pieces that have reached canonical status:

Puccini - Madama Butterfly (1904)
Gershwin - Porgy and Bess (1935)
Mahler - Symphony 8 (1907)
Britten - take yr pick, actually, either Peter Grimes (1945) or War Requiem (1962)
Stravinsky - Rite of Spring (1913)
Copland - again, take yr pick, way too many to list
Williams - once again, take yr pick; probably easier to list his scores that DIDN'T strike a chord with people

This is by no means intended to be a definitive list; just pointing out that the idea that there are no canonical 20th Century classical/symphonic pieces is blatantly wrong.

schoenberg - verklate nacht, erwartung, variations for orch. op.31, gurrelieder, a survivor from warsaw, the 2nd chamber symphony

Rhapsody in Blue bitchez

scott, my common sense tells me there are basic, mathematical standards of beauty inherent to people's perceptions: symmetry, harmony, ratio etc. These are the elements people look for in music, they haven't changed in the last millennia. 20th century classical music is lacking in those elements. Outcasts and underachievers keep hoping time will bring a different,upside down perspective that could make their own shortcomings seem normal, but human nature stays the same.

bartok - bluebeard's castle, the str.qts, concerto for orch., the miraculous mandarin, music for strings, percussion and celesta, the piano oncertos

(srsly though, how many ppl know the themes from "Star Wars", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Close Encounters...", "Jaws", "Superman", etc etc etc? John Williams is probably the most widely-recognized living American composer.)

critical appeals to "human nature" are always bullshit. sorry.

but Dan OTM otherwise

uh, I am sure you know I didn't make any human nature arguments and yr followup post is very misleading in that way but FOR THE RECORD I think Vision is also talking out of his ass

Shakey, human nature is rubbish only for those who still haven't attained human status themselves.

there are basic, mathematical standards of beauty inherent to people's perceptions: symmetry, harmony, ratio etc.

I mean this is so bald-facedly wrong - all you have to do is compare different cultures' musical traditions. Middle eastern music, western music, Indian music, gamelan, african music, etc all operate on radically different standards.

(yes I know Dan, I was just making a clumsy attempt to differentiate between the two different arguments going on concurrently here)

Black, you 're just namedropping. Shrillness betrays ignorance.

lolololol

lolriffic Vision keep it up

basically vision, you're wrong. it's that simple. 20c classical music (and how on earth can that be considered as an entity? it's as ridiculous as saying 20c popular music) has literally thousands of canonical pieces, and dozens of 20c composers are listened to with pleasure by millions, as well as taught at a basic level. you've lost the argument already.

but you know this cos you're a sock.

I mean I'm happy to take issue with Dan about a lot of things but classical music and music theory is not one of them

x-post

BTW, hysterical laughter also often betrays ignorance...

Shacknasty, "thousands" of canonical pieces? You don't say! Please tell me more!

do you want to see Dan's CV or something?

I'm not the definitive word on classical music! I just happen to be around a lot of it.

oh hey, if we've moved to the unrepentant bragging portion of the thread, I'm going to link reviews of the last opera chorus gig I did

http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2008/10/18/opera_boston_takes_aim_at_webers_der_freischutz/

http://bostonist.com/2008/10/21/opera_bostons_der_freischutz.php

"20th century classical music is lacking in those elements"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61OO2dvCFaL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51jEAyhAOuL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=entertainment&sc=music&sc2=reviews&sc3=performance&id=81090

(there's an incredibly savage blog review out there that I can't find)

i take it this was your idea:

"A pre-Freudian interpretation of the hero’s shooting problems as sexual impotence may explain the erotic gesturing, and Max’s pants being pulled down to his ankles during the Wolf Glen scene."

i can't wait for the hovhaness boom of 2080. god i love his stuff so much.

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2000/feb00/hovhaness11.jpg

scott, RE Barber et al: exceptions do not justify the rule.

Exceptions are the only ones people remember.

arvo and gorecki get all the ink, but hovhaness can stand up with those dudes easily.

no i agree with you vision, i hate the barber. this is more in line with your requirements:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y8X2BBE6L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

the messaien quartet is fab though.

and hovhaness's stuff is, like, totally TONAL and melodic and all that. so rich and creative. the 20th century had no short supply of AMAZING music. but it feels silly to even write that. doesn't everyone know that?

people who try to define what kind of pop music classical musicians listen to are naively taking their own social experience for the whole truth.

And how exactly was it that my post put sand in your genital area, sir?

I mean, Christ, yes, of course there are loads of musicians out there who get their groove on to "Thela Hun Ginjeet" or whatever. But in my experience, most orchestral players who aren't contemporary music specialists either (a) listen mostly to classical music, or (b) listen mostly to the same stuff everyone else in their demographic does. It's the Guitar Center kids that go in search of the note-y stuff, not the third chair violinists.

20th century classical music is lacking in those elements. Outcasts and underachievers keep hoping time will bring a different,upside down perspective that could make their own shortcomings seem normal, but human nature stays the same.

Not that I need to bother with anyone who'd post this kind of sub-Harold Schonberg crap. Projecting your own small-minded tastes as some kind of absolute truth is far, far worse a crime than talking a bit loosely about the musical tastes of trad classical musicians.

(Also, anyone who thinks that 20th century contemporary classical stylings have had no lasting influence or resonance has apparently never gone to the movies!)

I mean this is so bald-facedly wrong - all you have to do is compare different cultures' musical traditions. Middle eastern music, western music, Indian music, gamelan, african music, etc all operate on radically different standards.

OTM

aw, i like the barber.

but i love the xenakis too.

i reckon hohvaness is better than both part and gorecki.

So Black Seinfeld, by that very rationale, only the exceptions from the 20th century (Williams, Barber et al) will be remembered. All the dodecaphonic/cacophonous fraudsters will be deservedly assigned footnote status.

Well, apart from "Also sprach Zarazustra"

small caveat for one of the most famous/instantly recognized and overused classical pieces in Western culture

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:55 PM (Yesterday)

agreed. after 2001 it should have been off-limits.

you mean after Being There

nothing against Being There, but 2001 came first!

They're like Voltron imo: Loved by good, feared by evil.