Classical music can be so boring

[John Sayers]

Originally posted by blue2blue The Swingles transcended what should have been cheezy schtick... sometimes their stuff is just... amazing. I mean, I don't usually have a big thing for Claire de Lune... but they do this crazy, shimmering a capela version that... glimmers in the moonlight. Their 1812 Concerto is a bit much, though...

how about Dizzy Gillespie with the Double Six of Paris?? that was cool jazz scat singing.

Actually I heard a group last night that reminded me of the Hilos - they had that pure, non vibrato, blend and those beautiful added notes that make a normal chord a jazz chord.

they were called "The Idea of North". Absolutely stunning a cappella vocal work, they played some tracks off their new album plus they were live on the radio and they sang live there and then. Excellent.

http://www.idea.com.au/home.htm

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally posted by joel Oporto What makes classical music boring? The elitist attitudes that performers, composers, musicians can sometimes have when they play/create them. It becomes no fun as an audience. They tend to forget that music at best is a form of communication. The music conveys ideas through emotional highs and lows and everything in between. That is the foundation of music theory such as the modes and key signature and the basic I-IV-V peogression. You have the root( retention release etc.), subdominant(the wandering about carefree attitude), and the dominant(the tension which begs for release and hence back to the dominant). You then take the audience in a musical "rollercoaster" ride Whenever there is a failure to communicate, then as extended as classical music is, the result is an audience that gets bored. But when it is played with the exact enthusiasm and gusto and feel that the piece of music requires, then as with any type of music, whether classical, rock, jazz, dance, or whatever, the music will move the audience. I grew up listening to all types of music without any previous biases to muddle my appreciations. Only when I became a musician did I hear other musicians and teachers say that this and that are no good, this is better etc. There are some pretty biased conservatory teachers out there, especially in the classical field, that think that just because they are in the classical field, they are important and people should seriously pay attention or whatever. Whenever the music becomes elitist whether by composition or performance, it tends to become boring because: Classical music is soooo broad that its many levels then becomes compartmentalized levels for specific listeners. It is the duty of teachers to signify those compartments or boxes. For example, Some of the most boring pieces of classical music are the "modern" or "post modern" music by composers like hindemith, stravinsky, schoenberg and the ilk of that movement in musical composition. A "background check" on those composers will show that they were focused on the exploration of radical alternate harmonies and progressions that can be quite far out weird and hard to understand except by those who are actually into them. To an ordinary listener who did care to spend effort to research about the twelve tone system, will definitely get bored. Hence these composers are in a way, in the elitist compartment where their music are more for musicians only that are into the twelve-tone system as well. We as western music listeners are conditioned to respond to the trappings of harmony and key signature. I used to have music theory teachers that expounded on how so much better classical or jazz chords were compared to rock or even folk songs and that I should strive to create songs with such innovative chord substitutions and progressions like standards songs. They totally malaised rock/blues music for its 3 chord harmonies. What these people fail to percieve that dance, rock and blues is not about harmonies, its about energy, beat, attitude, angst and rebellion, and not about propriety or decorum.

 

 

From your opinion I can only conclude that you are not living in Europe and don't have an integrated relation to our music culture.

 

.

[RockViolin]

A boring, anemic presentation is one thing. A boring art is another. I was a "classical" musician for many years. This conversation in various forms came up every so often. Usually a "Why is the hall getting so empty at our concerts?" kind of thing. Among some other large pachyderms in the room, the overblown nature of the competition was frequently touched on. Modern entertainment brings a lot of immediate gratification to the show. To sit down and mostly just listen is a rare thing nowdays.

Gotta say I have a hard time watching some of the classical videos/performances where there is a *concerted* effort to be animated. Big, affected looks from one player to another. Its sad. Just as sad as the other end of the spectrum. That commercial of the piano quartet that rawks, culminating in the smashing of the cello, comes to mind. Oh The Intensity! Just as silly as if they were all deadpan. As there is often a just tempo for many works, so there is an appropriate amount of manner.

Beethoven isn't all Sturm und Drang and a bunch of broken bowhairs does not a great performance make. TBS, its true that a salaried, tenured player on his 500th trip thru Beethoven 7th, that has found a comfort zone and has learned to play it safe can give a lackluster performance compared to someone who is hungry, and is playing so that they will be asked to play again tomorrow. (This phenomena exists in conductors and elsewhere as well) Sad but true...and I've seen it. But sometimes all a good conductor has to do is get under the skin of the former a little to stoke the fire a bit.

My former band may have had a "union hack" or 2. There might have been a few times when I didn't leave it all on the stage as much as I would have liked. But mostly I remember a lot of good if not great players and performances. If there IS a shortage of great classical musicians and performances in the world, its not in the U.S.A.

Yet.

[John Sayers]

Classical musicians don't appear to realise that it's original bands that make it big, not cover bands.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Well, i

[RockViolin]

Originally posted by John Sayers Classical musicians don't appear to realise that it's original bands that make it big, not cover bands.

No, it's cheezey ass crap like "A Fifth of Beethoven".

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally posted by RockViolin No, it's cheezey ass crap like "A Fifth of Beethoven".

But only american orchestras play that LvB tune way too often.

I had a cultural shock after Mozart's 40th when I left the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion downtown.



.

[nat whilk II]

Well, there's this simple but huge fact that you have to learn and understand a language before you can understand a story told in that language.

And even if you have a basic familiarity with a language, and can read a train schedule or follow a newscast in, say, Ukranian, you still won't be able to appreciate the subtleties of poetry written in that language.

There are differences between music and spoken language, but for purposes of a limited analogy, I think the comparison works.

I mean if you really can't distinguish the modulated portion of a symphonic movement from the return to the tonic, then you will just not get it when it happens. Oh, you might sort of vaguely follow the broad outlines of the loud/soft, fast/slow, hectic/calm and so on, but whenever the "good stuff" is happening below your level of awareness, you will be the proverbial cow staring at the passing train.

It's like getting a massage with half the nerve endings in your back deadened and numb. You just won't get the full effect.

That's the real dilemma of education: the good educational experience broadens the consciousness and increases sensitivity to music. And vice versa. And it's not always the teacher's fault. Lots of students just don't want to broaden their consciousness or increase their sensitivity to subtleties.

For so many American music lovers, the most important test of music is the test of first impression. The immediate, visceral, un-analyzed reaction to music is thought to be the most honest, the most real, the least phony. There's a suspicion that all acquired tastes, all educated tastes, are elitist and fake. Well, to my way of thinking, the first impression is important and sometimes it's right on, but why stop there? Press in, dig deeper, learn and expand. Why not? A fear that too much intellectual activity will spoil the emotional purity? Is this a new kind of Puritanism?

Well, there are lots of elitists, fakes, and inhuman intellectuals -no argument there. But there aren't enough people who do the hard work to increase their awareness, their musical consciousness, and their sensitivity to subtlety. Body, mind and spirit.

No wonder no one reads poetry anymore. It can take a lot of work to get anywhere close to the hard-won treasures below the surface.

But if deep learning turns someone into a prig, it's not the learning's fault - it's the insecure person who uses the learning the wrong way.

nat whilk ii

[philbo]

Being a swiss boy, raised in a swiss community in Wisconsin, I really appreciated the yodelling... A much maligned art form that no rapper has had the courage to tap so far.

[bmdaustin]

One thing that a lot of people tend to forget, or at least overlook, is that there's just a bunch of mediocre and weak classical music out there - and it's the same with any other style of music, be it pop, rock, jazz, or whatever. It can't ALL be fabulous. Some of it is merely good or average, but it gets recorded anyway. I suppose it's easier to recognize bad pop or jazz than bad classical (an orchestra or even a good string quartet is still going to sound good even if it's material is weak), but it's there just the same.

My point is - if you haven't heard any good or great classical music, you just haven't been exposed to it yet. There's just too much of it written in so many styles for such a variety of instrumentation that there's got to be something that grabs you. And when you are exposed to it, you have to stop what you're doing, sit down, pay attention, and listen to it, whichm when you are truly connecting with that piece, is a pleasure and not an inconvenience.

I'll also take issue with a previous poster who said you had to know and understand the musical language before you could really appreciate a piece. I strongly disagree. Even the most musically uneducated person can be truly touched or moved by a piece of music because music communicates ultimately on an emotional level, and anybody can be receptive to that. I think one of the great failings of late 20th century composition is that it's overly intellectual and academic, as if each performance was to be part of a lecture recital with some accompanying text providing an indepth explanation of the experience I'm supposed to be having as I listen. Music is like a good joke in that if you have to stop and explain it, it didn't work.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

American symphony orchestras like the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, or the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra who just performed a piece from me, ARE VERY GOOD.

I think it is worth to have an ear on them ---> LIVE !!!

.

[philbo]

I tend to agree with Zappa on classical music:

If classical music is the state of the art then the arts are in a sad state.

``Conducting'' is when you draw ``designs'' in the nowhere -- with your stick, or with your hands -- which are interpreted as
``instructional messages'' by guys wearing bow ties who wish they were fishing.


A composer is a guy who goes around forcing his will on
unsuspecting air molecules,often with the assistence of
unsuspecting musicians.


Sopranos!? That's why God made the rocket launcher and grenade!

Why do people continue to compose music, and even pretend to teach others how to do it, when they already know the answer?
Nobody gives a {censored}.

The people of your century no longer require the service of composers. A composer is as useful to a person in a jogging suit as a dinsoaur turd in the middle of his runway.

===================
Zaooa's pointed witticisms aside, I have found some incredibly great classical music - I think 'Sabre Dance' is a work of genius in exploring diminished chromatic scales, for example. But 99.98% of what I hear is a big wash of mud, or the clessical equivalent of 'wanking' (like a 14 year lead guitar player on amphetamines).

I hear no passion, no feeling, no heart. So I rarely go looking there for something interesting to listen to. As I've mentioned before, life is too short to go searching for diamonds in dumpsters.... especially when there's nobody there to hold on to your ankes!

[goFish]

I'm surprised that my aside about a bad experience with classical music in college elicited so much fervent response.

Let me qualify what I'm about to say with the statement that I am a lifelong learner. In my job, I am constantly studying and learning, just as many of you do as well. I read several books a week just to have enough education to perform my job. I understand the necessity of learning and the beauty that only knowledge can unveil.

However (you knew there would be a however coming, didn't you?!), in my life, music is a thing of beauty that provides me escape from the rigors of life. I don't have to understand how clouds form, what type of cloud they are, and all the intricacies of meteorology to appreciate looking at the sky. I don't have to understand how a tree produced leaves in the spring and goes dormant in the winter to thrill at the simple pleasure of taking in all of God's creation. That may not be the case for you, and I certainly respect that. If knowledge helps you enjoy music, then you should sedulously attain more and more in order to increase your pleasure of the arts.

So, just like musical tastes, I would simply argue that it is not necessary for everyone to understand something to thoroughly and completely enjoy it to their own satisfaction.

But that's just my opinion.

[nat whilk II]

Originally posted by bmdaustin I'll also take issue with a previous poster who said you had to know and understand the musical language before you could really appreciate a piece. I strongly disagree. Even the most musically uneducated person can be truly touched or moved by a piece of music because music communicates ultimately on an emotional level, and anybody can be receptive to that. I think one of the great failings of late 20th century composition is that it's overly intellectual and academic, as if each performance was to be part of a lecture recital with some accompanying text providing an indepth explanation of the experience I'm supposed to be having as I listen. Music is like a good joke in that if you have to stop and explain it, it didn't work.

 

 

I agree totally that the most musically uneducated person can be truly touched or moved by a piece of music - no arguments at all there.

 

But that person will be touched and moved only by the more obvious kinds of musical expression, by a relatively narrow range of musical experiences. Sure, the experiences they have might be profound, deep, all that. But again, why stop there? I'm not putting anyone's experience down at all, I'm just talking about growing and expanding from wherever you are.

 

People seem so convinced that intellectual activity will automatically shut down and suppress emotional response. My take on this is that's a personal limitation that has a lot to do with education (or lack of good education) and a cultural backlash against intellectuals.

 

It seems really simple to me - if you can't actually hear and distinguish important aspects what you are listening to, then you can't fully appreciate it. You can partially appreciate it, sure.

 

Why is free-blowing jazz not very popular with the public? Because the scales and runs and modes all just sound like the same thing, running up and down high to low, fast or slow. The average person just can't perceive what the soloist is doing in any detail. They can only pick up on how intense it seems, or how really fast the guy can play, or how advanced and out-there the whole thing feels. That level of perception won't lend itself to any kind of extended concentration - it leads to boredom quickly.

 

It doesn't take a Phd, 'tho, to develop an ear for say, Coltrane's leads. Just a bit of music history, a bit of modal theory, some dinking around on the piano developing an ear for changes and intervals, and a lot of concentrated, comparative listening will get you far. You can even go further and learn how to transcribe solos and analyze them, but I think that's for the specialist and overkill for the purpose of basic appreciation.

 

To relate all this back to the classical music theme. I'm mainly recommending that, if you find classical, or any other kind of music boring, just entertain the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, your own limited ability to hear and appreciate is part of the problem, because of your lack of education or, gasp, your prejudices.

 

Sure, the music may be ultimately boring. Lord knows so much of it is. But how can you know that if you don't have the basic capacity to perceive what the music is actually doing?

 

nat whilk ii

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by goFish
I'm surprised that my aside about a bad experience with classical music in college elicited so much fervent response.


I think it was a great thing to bring up that motivated some thoughtful replies

I guess my concern was about they ruined it for me (as opposed to "I found I wasn't that interested in that apsect" or a more positive "Wow, there was a lot of stuff going on...more than I cared to know" or other such sentiments)

and the observation that the instructors asserted
why classical is so much more important could expose ,what I fear is, a core problem with their teching method...making the subject isolated, sacrosanct, inapproachable...and for those that discover it's not the way they want to look at it - adversarial!






Let me qualify what I'm about to say with the statement that I am a lifelong learner.

The wonderful thing is, current neuropsych suggests that we all are, perhaps in different modes and different modes from when we were young. Some of the problems could even be with not approaching our learning in a method our current brains respond well to

I think that speaks to the good point you bring up with

I grew up listening to classical music and didn't even know it

and in that, nat's & bmdaustin's views may not be quite as opposed as if first reads.

Except for maybe the profoundly deaf, we all have some musical education...through exposure

Diana Deutsch (UCSD) has done some very cool work demonstrating how even our perception of musical events can be altered by the culture in which we live.
From that standpoint, we have a working knowldege of some of the language.
I find this to really speak to how hard it can be to "wrap one's head around" musics from different cultures and even in the 20th century Wesrtern classical stuff.. I find a lot of times the works actually depart or "push aganst the constraints" of the established language..which can be interesting, but also hard to embrace as the dialect is somewhat alien (this is where, for me, explanitory text can sometimes help me as it gives me a reference frame, a context..like a rosetta stone)

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally posted by bmdaustin I'll also take issue with a previous poster who said you had to know and understand the musical language before you could really appreciate a piece. I strongly disagree.

 

 

Me too!!

 

The king of Bali was on state visit in France. During his official visit he was treated to a classical concert.

 

After the concert president Charles de Gaulle asked the king if he enjoyed the concert and the king said

 

"Yes, beautiful, especially the first tune was excellent"

 

which was the initial tuning of the orchestra instruments.

 

.

[goFish]

Paul - I think I understand what you're saying. I will say that my college experience in the "Fine Arts" class made me more cynical than appreciative of the so-called "classical" music. I think I rebelled against the idea that some "art" could be finer than others. On the other hand, I don't buy the idea that anything is art for art's sake. For example, most of what passes as modern art strikes me as being lazy and frivelous.

I like my classical music combined with something visual, such as (as crude as it may seem) a Bugs Bunny cartoon or a movie that stimulates me viscerally, visually and aurally. While that may seem like a adulteration to some, it makes perfect sense to me.

Perhaps its a shame that some "educators" create such disdain in the hearts of their students, but perhaps some things are worth rebelling against.

For some of us, "accidental" listening of classical music works best, sans understanding of busywork, movements, composers, etc.

Let me add that I found the clip included in the opening entry of this thread to be quite entertaining and enjoyable.

I'm not sure than any part of my opinion is worthy of the time it took me to give it!!

Have a great day.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

A little test.

Which of the following composers you know and heard his music played live or in compact disc?

Guido d'Arezzo (0995-1050)
Monteverdi, Claudio (1567 - 1643)
Hildegard von Bingen, (1098 - 1179)
Lassus, Orlandus (1532 - 1594)
Corelli, Arcangelo (1653-1713)
Albinoni, Tomaso (1671-1751)
Croft, William (1678-1727)
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (1756-1791)
Delius, Frederick (1862-1934)
Bruckner, Anton (1824-1896)
Mascagni, Pietro (1863-1945)
Ponchielli, Amilcare (1834-1886)
Severac, Marie Joseph Alexandre Deodat de (1873-1921)
Mompou, Federico (1893-1987)
Surinach, Carlos (1915-)
Granados, Enrique (1867-1916)
Montsalvatge, Xavier (1912-)

.

[nat whilk II]

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide A little test. Which of the following composers you know and heard his music played live or in compact disc? Guido d'Arezzo (0995-1050) Monteverdi, Claudio (1567 - 1643) Hildegard von Bingen, (1098 - 1179) Lassus, Orlandus (1532 - 1594) Corelli, Arcangelo (1653-1713) Albinoni, Tomaso (1671-1751) Croft, William (1678-1727) Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (1756-1791) Delius, Frederick (1862-1934) Bruckner, Anton (1824-1896) Mascagni, Pietro (1863-1945) Ponchielli, Amilcare (1834-1886) Severac, Marie Joseph Alexandre Deodat de (1873-1921) Mompou, Federico (1893-1987) Surinach, Carlos (1915-) Granados, Enrique (1867-1916) Montsalvatge, Xavier (1912-) .

 

 

Hmmm....Corelli I have on a compilation of adagios....Albinoni they play a lot on the local classical station....WA Mozart, well duh....Delius I have a couple of vinyl records...Bruckner I've heard but never purchased...Granados, there's some of his stuff on a John Williams guitar album I love. that's about it for me.

 

Hildegard von Bingen I've heard of in relation to religious/mystical writings, but I don't think I've ever heard her music. I have a vague memory that she's been co-opted by New Agers. What kind of notation exists for her music from so long ago?

 

nat whilk ii

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Hildegard von Bingen

Even thus I never perform music by her, I have many compositions of her in form of notation, possibly own all know compositions, also transciptions in contemporary notation.

Notation examples:





.

[nat whilk II]

Wow, Angelo - lovely manuscript.

nat whilk ii

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Anderton Classical music is boring when played by union hacks who put it over on their audience because they play the game of being "cultured." Oh, we're so cultured, we listen to classical music! If you want classical music, listen to some of the kickass recordings by no-name orchestras out of former iron curtain countries who play classical music with passion, and with at least what I think is a real understanding of the dynamics and power behind the best classical music.

 

Craig: which American or European orchestras do you consider union hacks? As much as the union can be a drag (and that

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Anderton > Damn good point IMHO. I was lucky enough to react to classical music solely from a visceral, emotional standpoint.

Not IMHO. I have yet to meet a bad teacher with enough evil force to ruin the visceral magic of a single piece of music.

Originally posted by Anderton When you hear a Beethoven symphony, it's a wall of sound with so many twists and turns...honestly I've never sat down and analyzed it,

You just did. that's analysis. theory need not be synonomous with horrible old teachers, it's just figuring out how music works and expressing that in words.

Originally posted by Anderton And Bach...I must have heard 20 different versions of the Brandenburgs in my life, and I only like one of them. I have a feeling the other 19 were by people who were taught in college what all the segments meant

Are you really serious or are you just making a joke?

The Brandenburgs are so good, I have had a hard time finding a recording of them I don't like! There are fantastic recordings of them everywhere. have you really hated 19 out of 20? Which were they?

And why the hating on education?

Beethoven - Mozart - studied like crazy. The best recordings of the Brandenburgs were by musicians who studied like crazy. Bach studied like crazy (or he would never have mastered and amalgamated so many musical styles into such a cohesive masterpiece).

And isn't the same true in pop/rock/jazz/etc.? The best musicians study their asses off in their own musical worlds. Informally or formally, all learning is good. IMHO.

-peaceloveandbrittanylips

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by goFish
I think I rebelled against the idea that some "art" could be finer than others. On the other hand, I don't buy the idea that anything is art for art's sake. For example, most of what passes as modern art strikes me as being lazy and frivelous.


It's a funny balance, one thing that may help you with understanding of the profs (and I'm not saying they were 'right' in saying that, but that they were human and with their perspective) is that very undertanding of your own biases (I tend to find the roll of the teacher is maybe more appropriately to "help someone learn" as opposed to "instill" and it's that process that may be in question)


I like my classical music combined with something visual, such as (as crude as it may seem) a Bugs Bunny cartoon or a movie that stimulates me viscerally, visually and aurally. While that may seem like a adulteration to some, it makes perfect sense to me.


I wouldn't feel bad about it, some people are more visually oriented (I'm almost totally aural myself...spent a decent part of the formative years abt 3 blocks from the American Printinghouse for the blind...sometimesI wonder if having lots of blind folks in the community had an effect).
I wouldn't be shocked if the need for a visual context would be even stronger in music forms that one grew up with having a visual association or a music that one has less 'personal space' devoted to.



Perhaps its a shame that some "educators" create such disdain in the hearts of their students, but perhaps some things are worth rebelling against.


I wouldn't say 'but', I'd say "and" if it's a shame...sure! rebell against the bad teacher - they don't "own" that music or the process of looking at the music.


For some of us, "accidental" listening of classical music works best, sans understanding of busywork,


ouch -- just as we ask some to accept less structured type of listening, so should we respect an appreciation of the structure for what it is... the use of "busywork", I think, is a scar from your past experience with the poor teachers, and like scars of the flesh they can continue to cause us pain and reduce our flexibility.



I'm not sure than any part of my opinion is worthy of the time it took me to give it!!


hey, it's your opinion and so is worthy -- even if it's just a stray thought...as you mentioned with listening 'for some of us "accidental" ...[thinking] works best"

don't let yourself get too trapped by valuation, neither by others nor yourself. That way you can appreciate things for what they have to offer be it types of music, types of thinking about music, or what-have-you


Have a great day.

I endeavor to!

[Anderton]