To name just probably the two most famous names in classical music, I am trying to figure out why people consider their music so fantastic. I am understanding that perhaps in their day, the complexity of musical compositions such as theirs was rare or unheard of until people like them pioneered it. However, after hearing some of their music I'm just unable to differentiate what makes their music so highly regarded over any of the other more modern composers and even some famous composers of today who compose for movies and games.
What makes Betthoven and Mozart's music so good?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Take a music history course. Composers of the classical period were highly formulaic creators- they made sonata plan music solely to print music for profit. Keep in mind- way back in the day, a lot of people played instruments EXTREMELY well. Sheet music was in huge demand.
As for Beethoven- he was the bridge to the Romantic period. He started to break the trends and formulas. Its obvious in some of his most famous pieces
The "moonlight sonata" Is the Sonata Phantastique, "A sonata like a fantasy".
I personally think classical music sucks. Its formulaic and boring as sh*t. The Romantic period kicks ass. Because the classical period was OBJECTIVE, and the Romantic was SUBJECTIVE.
Well this is what I mean. I understand why he's a famous historical figure. Why they are. The question is why their music is considered so good even today when there have been probably plenty of comparably proficient composers since their day. When I keep thinking about it it's almost as if many people like their music to be hip or to appear as an intellectual because of the image of liking a non-mainstream musician and particularly liking the classical genre.
I dont know why you bother. Have you even seen anyone saying: "OH GOD, CLASSIC COMPOSERS ARE THE BEST AND TODAYS MUSIC SUCK". No, we dont see that. Anyone with a basic musical knowledge knows that classical composers need to be remembered, not glorified. But if you see someone glorifying classical composers, then its either because this person wants to look special or because this person really likes soft music, or both. Me, personally, i dont like soft classical music, but i recognize that those composers should at least be remembered.Well this is what I mean. I understand why he's a famous historical figure. Why they are. The question is why their music is considered so good even today when there have been probably plenty of comparably proficient composers since their day. When I keep thinking about it it's almost as if many people like their music to be hip or to appear as an intellectual because of the image of liking a non-mainstream musician and particularly liking the classical genre.
-Unreal-
Well this is what I mean. I understand why he's a famous historical figure. Why they are. The question is why their music is considered so good even today when there have been probably plenty of comparably proficient composers since their day. When I keep thinking about it it's almost as if many people like their music to be hip or to appear as an intellectual because of the image of liking a non-mainstream musician and particularly liking the classical genre.
-Unreal-
There are probably plenty of composers of similar skill level today, but it's harder to make a name for yourself when there are so many composers who are already considered great. Essentially, modern day composers still have to compete with Beethoven and Mozart's music just to be recognized.
Besides, I'm sure you'll find that plenty of people that are really into classical music will praise many modern composers, but Beethoven and Mozart have been around so long they're more well known by the public and that's who most people will hear about.
There are probably plenty of composers of similar skill level today, metroidfoodNo there aren't. These guys, especially Mozart, where a rare and special kind of genius that only comes along once a generation. Hundreds of years from now, when we are all dead, people will have forgotten about The Rolling Stones, Justin Beaver, Radiohead, and the like, but they'll still be having concerts of Mozart and Beethoven.
[QUOTE="metroidfood"]There are probably plenty of composers of similar skill level today, Nuck81No there aren't. These guys, especially Mozart, where a rare and special kind of genius that only comes along once a generation. Hundreds of years from now, when we are all dead, people will have forgotten about The Rolling Stones, Justin Beaver, Radiohead, and the like, but they'll still be having concerts of Mozart and Beethoven.
None of the people you mentioned are symphony composers...
Also, if this kind of genius only comes along once a generation then we've definitely had multiple Mozarts and Beethovens since their time.
Because it's better than Justin Beaver and One Direction
Guys wearing trench coats and fedoras looking to portray an image of intellect (which is obviously lacking) for the most part nowadays.
Then again it's some very technically impressive music just not to my interest at all.
Hans Zimmer is the modern day Mozart.TrueAmerican007No, not even close. If you want to compare him with anyone in the past, he would be more like Johann Strauss
[QUOTE="Nuck81"] No there aren't. These guys, especially Mozart, where a rare and special kind of genius that only comes along once a generation. Hundreds of years from now, when we are all dead, people will have forgotten about The Rolling Stones, Justin Beaver, Radiohead, and the like, but they'll still be having concerts of Mozart and Beethoven.fluffy_puppy666So, following your logic, in hundreds of years, human capacity devolved. Makes perfect sense. If you say that there is no composer as the classical ones, then you must have listened to ALL artists that existed after the classical period, right?
Classical music is still be created.....it's not a dead art form. (though, the better term for the style of music itself is "Western art music", and the period classical")
[QUOTE="TrueAmerican007"]Hans Zimmer is the modern day Mozart.Ring_of_fireNo, not even close. If you want to compare him with anyone in the past, he would be more like Johann Strauss >No, not even close. If you want to compare him with anyone in the past, he would be more like Johann Strauss
What cristeria do you use to decide what artist is better? There is no better artist, art is not something concrete that you measure with numbers, art is chaotic. Some like hans zimmer more, some like mozart more and none have better taste. Deal with it.
No, not even close. If you want to compare him with anyone in the past, he would be more like Johann Strauss >No, not even close. If you want to compare him with anyone in the past, he would be more like Johann Strauss[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"][QUOTE="TrueAmerican007"]Hans Zimmer is the modern day Mozart.fluffy_puppy666
What cristeria do you use to decide what artist is better? There is no better artist, art is not something concrete that you measure with numbers, art is chaotic. Some like hans zimmer more, some like mozart more and none have better taste. Deal with it.
Look, I wasn't insulting Hans Zimmer. The only thing you're saying with that statement is that you dislike Johann Strauss. Comparing him with Strauss is a closer comparison. Especially since comparing him to Mozart vastly overrates Zimmer.
Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.
OpinionsTo name just probably the two most famous names in classical music, I am trying to figure out why people consider their music so fantastic. I am understanding that perhaps in their day, the complexity of musical compositions such as theirs was rare or unheard of until people like them pioneered it. However, after hearing some of their music I'm just unable to differentiate what makes their music so highly regarded over any of the other more modern composers and even some famous composers of today who compose for movies and games.
-Unreal-
Look, I wasn't insulting Hans Zimmer. The only thing you're saying with that statement is that you dislike Johann Strauss. Comparing him with Strauss is a closer comparison. Especially since comparing him to Mozart vastly overrates Zimmer.
Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.
Ring_of_fire
>Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.
No, you cant. I ask you again: what criteria can you use to claim that one piece of art is better than another piece of art? Saying that one composer is better than another is like saying that "red" is a more beautiful color than "blue", it just makes no sense. If you think that a better composer is a composer that does more complex composing, then its your opinion; if you think that a better composer is the one that makes original composing, than its your opinion. One does not just look at a Van Gogh painting and say that its better or worse than Michelangelo, friend.
Their music will stand the test of time. Sure there are great composers that will hold up over time. Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven. And I may not have listened to all artists that existed after the classical period, but have listened to far more than you, and more than probably all but a handfull of others on this forum. I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school. What your musical education and background?Nuck81
>I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school.
>What your musical education and background?
You just showed how ignorant and how bad you are at your career just by using this fallaciousargument. If you have never heard of it, the name of the "argument" you used is AD HOMINEM, search for it and never do it again, its shameful and makes you look ridiculous. No offense.
>Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven.
As i just said to another friend on this thread, saying that one artist is better than another is like saying that "red" is better than "blue", there is no better color, there is no better artist. Art is not a concrete mathematical thing that you measure, art is not good or bad, art only depends on who sees it. Me, personally, i prefer Claude Debussy WAY more than Mozart. For me the classical period was really boring, the romantic and impressionest artists for me were much better. What criteria do you use to say that Mozart is better than Debussy? There is no criteria, its just being a elitist conservative pseudo musician.
Complexity of sound =/= Depth of sound If you cannot differentiate between classically composed music and that of modern music (especially mainstream pop), I feel sorry for you. You are missing out on a world of extraordinary musical greatness.Zeviander
The kind of person I want to punch is this person. "Classical music is superior". Oh my god- It's formulaic as f*ck and boring as sh*t. Music has changed. It has evolved.
There are awesome pop songs, and awesome symphonies. What do they both have in common? F*cking dope melodies and rhythms. Thats it.
That makes me so mad. "modern music sucks" blah blah blah. It's all the same. Every song that has ever existed is about getting girls/losing a girl. Sh*t hasnt changed. Have you ever seen a f*cking Opera?
Mozart in particular was a musical genius. He composed extremely complex music under the age of 10. He's not my favorite classical composer though.
There are composers out there today who rival him and other household classical names. The thing is a lot of them don't have the same skillsets that the classical composers had. Take Paganini for example. The man was an absolute monster at playing the violin. Very few people can compose what he did let alone play what he did in today's age.
Many jazz artists are equally proficient and also equally talented composers as well. The main beauty of jazz however is that much of it is improvised rather than composed.
[QUOTE="fluffy_puppy666"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] No there aren't. These guys, especially Mozart, where a rare and special kind of genius that only comes along once a generation. Hundreds of years from now, when we are all dead, people will have forgotten about The Rolling Stones, Justin Beaver, Radiohead, and the like, but they'll still be having concerts of Mozart and Beethoven.MannyDelgadoSo, following your logic, in hundreds of years, human capacity devolved. Makes perfect sense. If you say that there is no composer as the classical ones, then you must have listened to ALL artists that existed after the classical period, right? He's right, though. Popular music is ephemeral in a way that classical music is not. Even popular music from just a couple of decades ago often seems corny and ridiculous - why? Because popular music is about style over substance, and when that style goes out of fashion, there's nothing left.
God. The ignorant/arrogant opinions are filling my brain with f*ck. The classical era was ALL ABOUT OBJECTIVITY AND FORMULA. HELLO? The only Classical music we listen to today IS THE GREATEST HITS COMPILATION. There is PLENTY of crap classical music. But the only stuff that has survived is the good stuff. Everything that was junk was thrown away 200 years ago. The only classical music we are exposed to is the stuff that has survived.
AHHH SO ANGRY
He's right, though. Popular music is ephemeral in a way that classical music is not. Even popular music from just a couple of decades ago often seems corny and ridiculous - why? Because popular music is about style over substance, and when that style goes out of fashion, there's nothing left.MannyDelgadoAre you implying that one day Pink Floyd will be completely forgotten and will not be considered classic anymore? You thing that the only art period that last is the classical? This is interesting, because impressionism is from the late 1800 and lots of people paint impressionist frames today.
No, you cant. I ask you again: what criteria can you use to claim that one piece of art is better than another piece of art? Saying that one composer is better than another is like saying that "red" is a more beautiful color than "blue", it just makes no sense.
fluffy_puppy666
There are arguably objective ways to define "good" music. Whether you agree with those ways however is your opinion. The basic rules of consonance and dissonance appear to be universal when looking at studies involving infants (and adults, although some older studies posit that it's cultural), and their use in combination with the main judging factors of music - harmony, melody, rhythm, and timbre - tend to be a relatively typical way to 'objectively' judge (popular) music.
I tend to disagree somewhat with that model in favor of one that looks at how an artist or composer uses the chromatic scale to create the aforementioned factors (melody, harmony, etc.), and how they utilize rhythm elements. Then I listen to see if it ever goes anywhere and evokes a specific introspective response. That's where the opinion part comes in for me.
[QUOTE="fluffy_puppy666"]
No, you cant. I ask you again: what criteria can you use to claim that one piece of art is better than another piece of art? Saying that one composer is better than another is like saying that "red" is a more beautiful color than "blue", it just makes no sense.
Saturos3091
There are arguably objective ways to define "good" music. Whether you agree with those ways however is your opinion. The basic rules of consonance and dissonance appear to be universal when looking at studies involving infants (and adults, although some older studies posit that it's cultural), and their use in combination with the main judging factors of music - harmony, melody, rhythm, and timbre - tend to be a relatively typical way to 'objectively' judge (popular) music.
I tend to disagree somewhat with that model in favor of one that looks at how an artist or composer uses the chromatic scale to create the aforementioned factors (melody, harmony, etc.), and how they utilize rhythm elements. Then I listen to see if it ever goes anywhere and evokes a specific introspective response. That's where the opinion part comes in for me.
This user knows some things. Thank god. I agree, we more or less judge music on a few factors, melody, harmony, rhythms, timbre. But how those things are interpreted are so opinion based. Is there any real reason why a certain melody speaks to me verses another one? Not that I can think of. How can you materialize that? I have no idea. I however, know I am a sucker for "singable" melody and dance grooves... so really busy music (lots of notes, or shredding playing) Never appeal to me. If you cant sing the melody... how good is it? I would say its bad.
He's right, though. Popular music is ephemeral in a way that classical music is not. Even popular music from just a couple of decades ago often seems corny and ridiculous - why? Because popular music is about style over substance, and when that style goes out of fashion, there's nothing left.[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="fluffy_puppy666"] So, following your logic, in hundreds of years, human capacity devolved. Makes perfect sense. If you say that there is no composer as the classical ones, then you must have listened to ALL artists that existed after the classical period, right? Shmiity
God. The ignorant/arrogant opinions are filling my brain with f*ck. The classical era was ALL ABOUT OBJECTIVITY AND FORMULA. HELLO? The only Classical music we listen to today IS THE GREATEST HITS COMPILATION. There is PLENTY of crap classical music. But the only stuff that has survived is the good stuff. Everything that was junk was thrown away 200 years ago. The only classical music we are exposed to is the stuff that has survived.
AHHH SO ANGRY
Classical music might have been formulaic in comparison to Romantic music, but in comparison to pop music it certainly isn't. Would you seriously argue that Sonata form is any less free than verse-chorus form? I mean christ, once you've heard the first verse and chorus of a pop song, that's basically it - the form is so restrictive that you can pretty much deduce the entire remainder of the song immediately (with the exception of the odd bridge here and there). Good luck doing that from, say, the exposition of a Mozart sonata.edit: also I know that the crap classical music has been discarded through time. So what?
[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]He's right, though. Popular music is ephemeral in a way that classical music is not. Even popular music from just a couple of decades ago often seems corny and ridiculous - why? Because popular music is about style over substance, and when that style goes out of fashion, there's nothing left.fluffy_puppy666Are you implying that one day Pink Floyd will be completely forgotten and will not be considered classic anymore? You thing that the only art period that last is the classical? This is interesting, because impressionism is from the late 1800 and lots of people paint impressionist frames today. Yes, I think they will be. Only time will tell, of course. Also, I wrote 'classical' with a lowercase 'c' for a reason - I'm referring to Western Art music in general (of which impressionism is a subset, as it happens)
[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]
Look, I wasn't insulting Hans Zimmer. The only thing you're saying with that statement is that you dislike Johann Strauss. Comparing him with Strauss is a closer comparison. Especially since comparing him to Mozart vastly overrates Zimmer.
Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.
fluffy_puppy666
>Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.
No, you cant. I ask you again: what criteria can you use to claim that one piece of art is better than another piece of art? Saying that one composer is better than another is like saying that "red" is a more beautiful color than "blue", it just makes no sense. If you think that a better composer is a composer that does more complex composing, then its your opinion; if you think that a better composer is the one that makes original composing, than its your opinion. One does not just look at a Van Gogh painting and say that its better or worse than Michelangelo, friend.
Their music will stand the test of time. Sure there are great composers that will hold up over time. Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven. And I may not have listened to all artists that existed after the classical period, but have listened to far more than you, and more than probably all but a handfull of others on this forum. I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school. What your musical education and background?Nuck81
>I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school.
>What your musical education and background?
You just showed how ignorant and how bad you are at your career just by using this fallaciousargument. If you have never heard of it, the name of the "argument" you used is AD HOMINEM, search for it and never do it again, its shameful and makes you look ridiculous. No offense.
>Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven.
As i just said to another friend on this thread, saying that one artist is better than another is like saying that "red" is better than "blue", there is no better color, there is no better artist. Art is not a concrete mathematical thing that you measure, art is not good or bad, art only depends on who sees it. Me, personally, i prefer Claude Debussy WAY more than Mozart. For me the classical period was really boring, the romantic and impressionest artists for me were much better. What criteria do you use to say that Mozart is better than Debussy? There is no criteria, its just being a elitist conservative pseudo musician.
I also will jump on this Nuck hate train. Hey dude, I have a f*cking music degree, too. Except I understand that how complicated/sophisticated a song is has no relation to how good it is- Or how it will survive the test of time. Classical music/jazz snobs are my least favorite people. You know what? Katy Perry has good f*cking songs. So do The Killers. Beethoven can roll over in his grave. There are awesome songs from every era. Giving one era dominance over the other really makes me want to shred your diploma. I will run down the halls to "Mr brightside" while youre busy solfeging figured bass from 300 years ago.
Giving one era dominance over the other really makes me want to shred your diploma.
Shmiity
I personally think classical music sucks. Its formulaic and boring as sh*t. The Romantic period kicks ass. Because the classical period was OBJECTIVE, and the Romantic was SUBJECTIVE.
Shmiity
lol
n1
[QUOTE="Shmiity"]
[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]He's right, though. Popular music is ephemeral in a way that classical music is not. Even popular music from just a couple of decades ago often seems corny and ridiculous - why? Because popular music is about style over substance, and when that style goes out of fashion, there's nothing left.MannyDelgado
God. The ignorant/arrogant opinions are filling my brain with f*ck. The classical era was ALL ABOUT OBJECTIVITY AND FORMULA. HELLO? The only Classical music we listen to today IS THE GREATEST HITS COMPILATION. There is PLENTY of crap classical music. But the only stuff that has survived is the good stuff. Everything that was junk was thrown away 200 years ago. The only classical music we are exposed to is the stuff that has survived.
AHHH SO ANGRY
Classical music might have been formulaic in comparison to Romantic music, but in comparison to pop music it certainly isn't. Would you seriously argue that Sonata form is any less free than verse-chorus form? I mean christ, once you've heard the first verse and chorus of a pop song, that's basically it - the form is so restrictive that you can pretty much deduce the entire remainder of the song immediately (with the exception of the odd bridge here and there). Good luck doing that from, say, the exposition of a Mozart sonata.edit: also I know that the crap classical music has been discarded through time. So what?
What Im getting at- is there are awesome songs and bad songs from every era. Western art music (baroque, classical, romantic, ect) happened so long ago, that the good stuff has already been sorted. Popular music hasn't ended yet. It's only 60 years old. We have no idea what songs/bands/artists will be around 100 years from now. We wont be there.
I find classicism super boring. You can compare it to verses/choruses, sure. Go for it. I wont argue with that. But my whole music mantra is "theme theme theme". I want singable melodies, hooks, riffs. Thats what makes music so good. The best songs have awesome melodies/rhythmic patterns. Doesnt matter what era we're in. I hate on mozart because I hate busy playing. These runs, and modulations for no reason. Playing for playing sake = awful songwriting.
[QUOTE="Shmiity"]
Giving one era dominance over the other really makes me want to shred your diploma.
MannyDelgado
I personally think classical music sucks. Its formulaic and boring as sh*t. The Romantic period kicks ass. Because the classical period was OBJECTIVE, and the Romantic was SUBJECTIVE.
Shmiity
lol
n1
:0 *shreds own diploma*
What I really like about classical music is its complexity that is so rare nowadays. Classical music is complex and technically hard to master. Now compare that to the "sheet music" of a Bieber song, where the notes can be learned and played during a skillful musician's lunch break. Music of that period tells stories, and does not even need words most of the time. I personally love the music of the Baroque period for that reason. Bach fugues are complex yet harmonically beautiful. Those fugues tell amazing stories and emotions ranging from pure joy and love to darkness, anger, and sadness, all arranged in a transitional form that is called music. "Most" music today is dry and empty. It feels completely commercialized, with no artistic touch or humanity what so ever. kingfire11
I feel so the opposite. I am not a fan of Baroque for the exactly those reasons. Too many notes, too much playing. I want to hear the melody sing out, and be able to sing it back. I would rather it be really simple, so everyone can play it. I get turned off really quickly when I hear busy playing. I don't hear stories, I hear vomit.
[QUOTE="kingfire11"]What I really like about classical music is its complexity that is so rare nowadays. Classical music is complex and technically hard to master. Now compare that to the "sheet music" of a Bieber song, where the notes can be learned and played during a skillful musician's lunch break. Music of that period tells stories, and does not even need words most of the time. I personally love the music of the Baroque period for that reason. Bach fugues are complex yet harmonically beautiful. Those fugues tell amazing stories and emotions ranging from pure joy and love to darkness, anger, and sadness, all arranged in a transitional form that is called music. "Most" music today is dry and empty. It feels completely commercialized, with no artistic touch or humanity what so ever. Shmiity
I feel so the opposite. I am not a fan of Baroque for the exactly those reasons. Too many notes, too much playing. I want to hear the melody sing out, and be able to sing it back. I would rather it be really simple, so everyone can play it. I get turned off really quickly when I hear busy playing. I don't hear stories, I hear vomit.
Yeah I was like that for a while. Many people dislike that period for the reasons you listed. What I do is usually try to focus and follow all melodies at once. I am getting good at it but sometimes it is impossible (Some Bach Organ fugues for example, that stuff is just too complex to follow but I still enjoy it).This user knows some things. Thank god. I agree, we more or less judge music on a few factors, melody, harmony, rhythms, timbre. But how those things are interpreted are so opinion based. Is there any real reason why a certain melody speaks to me verses another one? Not that I can think of. How can you materialize that? I have no idea. I however, know I am a sucker for "singable" melody and dance grooves... so really busy music (lots of notes, or shredding playing) Never appeal to me. If you cant sing the melody... how good is it? I would say its bad.
Shmiity
I definitely agree that they are heavily interpreted elements. I was just trying to bring up that consonance and dissonance (IE: how the human ear perceives the twelve, or in some cases more, tones of the chromatic scale) are generally how people determine "good" or "bad" music. For example dissonant frequencies are shown to make people lose interest fast and increase the production of growth and stress hormones. That doesn't mean it is necessarily unenjoyable though since there are other elements beyond the sound itself (say your mood, location, memories, etc.) which make it speak to you specifically. A lot of it is also culturally and socially engrained. Basically I was just arguing that the field isn't so black and white when it comes to the relativism debate, and that psychoacoustics is a damn interesting field.
As for music of the classical period being very formulaic, it certainly was. Honestly I would argue that the large majority of orchestral music was formulaic until 20th century modernism. That doesn't diminish these composers' talents by any means though, and that is why I believe they should be respected just as someone who writes and performs quality pop music should be respected. Both were/are equally rare in their time.
[QUOTE="Shmiity"]
This user knows some things. Thank god. I agree, we more or less judge music on a few factors, melody, harmony, rhythms, timbre. But how those things are interpreted are so opinion based. Is there any real reason why a certain melody speaks to me verses another one? Not that I can think of. How can you materialize that? I have no idea. I however, know I am a sucker for "singable" melody and dance grooves... so really busy music (lots of notes, or shredding playing) Never appeal to me. If you cant sing the melody... how good is it? I would say its bad.
Saturos3091
I definitely agree that they are heavily interpreted elements. I was just trying to bring up that consonance and dissonance (IE: how the human ear perceives the twelve, or in some cases more, tones of the chromatic scale) are generally how people determine "good" or "bad" music. For example dissonant frequencies are shown to make people lose interest fast and increase the production of growth and stress hormones. That doesn't mean it is necessarily unenjoyable though since there are other elements beyond the sound itself (say your mood, location, memories, etc.) which make it speak to you specifically. A lot of it is also culturally and socially engrained. Basically I was just arguing that the field isn't so black and white when it comes to the relativism debate, and that psychoacoustics is a damn interesting field.
As for music of the classical period being very formulaic, it certainly was. Honestly I would argue that the large majority of orchestral music was formulaic until 20th century modernism. That doesn't diminish these composers' talents by any means though, and that is why I believe they should be respected just as someone who writes and performs quality pop music should be respected. Both were/are equally rare in their time.
THIS USER KNOWS SOME THINGS.
And what do you mean by dissonant frequencies make people lose interest? Dissonances are everywhere. You can find them in like every song ever. The resolution of dissonances into consonances is huge part of melody. Do you mean like atonal/12 tone sh*t?
In honor of Betthoven's birthday I think I'm going to listen to some monnlight sonata.
[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]
[QUOTE="Shmiity"]
This user knows some things. Thank god. I agree, we more or less judge music on a few factors, melody, harmony, rhythms, timbre. But how those things are interpreted are so opinion based. Is there any real reason why a certain melody speaks to me verses another one? Not that I can think of. How can you materialize that? I have no idea. I however, know I am a sucker for "singable" melody and dance grooves... so really busy music (lots of notes, or shredding playing) Never appeal to me. If you cant sing the melody... how good is it? I would say its bad.
Shmiity
I definitely agree that they are heavily interpreted elements. I was just trying to bring up that consonance and dissonance (IE: how the human ear perceives the twelve, or in some cases more, tones of the chromatic scale) are generally how people determine "good" or "bad" music. For example dissonant frequencies are shown to make people lose interest fast and increase the production of growth and stress hormones. That doesn't mean it is necessarily unenjoyable though since there are other elements beyond the sound itself (say your mood, location, memories, etc.) which make it speak to you specifically. A lot of it is also culturally and socially engrained. Basically I was just arguing that the field isn't so black and white when it comes to the relativism debate, and that psychoacoustics is a damn interesting field.
As for music of the classical period being very formulaic, it certainly was. Honestly I would argue that the large majority of orchestral music was formulaic until 20th century modernism. That doesn't diminish these composers' talents by any means though, and that is why I believe they should be respected just as someone who writes and performs quality pop music should be respected. Both were/are equally rare in their time.
THIS USER KNOWS SOME THINGS.
And what do you mean by dissonant frequencies make people lose interest? Dissonances are everywhere. You can find them in like every song ever. The resolution of dissonances into consonances is huge part of melody. Do you mean like atonal/12 tone sh*t?
Maybe he means unresolved dissonances, idk. I doubt he would claim that because of the diminished fifth, a V7-I cadence causes people to 'lose interest' or something, anyway.[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]
Look, I wasn't insulting Hans Zimmer. The only thing you're saying with that statement is that you dislike Johann Strauss. Comparing him with Strauss is a closer comparison. Especially since comparing him to Mozart vastly overrates Zimmer.
Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.
fluffy_puppy666
>Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.
No, you cant. I ask you again: what criteria can you use to claim that one piece of art is better than another piece of art? Saying that one composer is better than another is like saying that "red" is a more beautiful color than "blue", it just makes no sense. If you think that a better composer is a composer that does more complex composing, then its your opinion; if you think that a better composer is the one that makes original composing, than its your opinion. One does not just look at a Van Gogh painting and say that its better or worse than Michelangelo, friend.
Their music will stand the test of time. Sure there are great composers that will hold up over time. Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven. And I may not have listened to all artists that existed after the classical period, but have listened to far more than you, and more than probably all but a handfull of others on this forum. I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school. What your musical education and background?Nuck81
>I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school.
>What your musical education and background?
You just showed how ignorant and how bad you are at your career just by using this fallaciousargument. If you have never heard of it, the name of the "argument" you used is AD HOMINEM, search for it and never do it again, its shameful and makes you look ridiculous. No offense.
>Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven.
As i just said to another friend on this thread, saying that one artist is better than another is like saying that "red" is better than "blue", there is no better color, there is no better artist. Art is not a concrete mathematical thing that you measure, art is not good or bad, art only depends on who sees it. Me, personally, i prefer Claude Debussy WAY more than Mozart. For me the classical period was really boring, the romantic and impressionest artists for me were much better. What criteria do you use to say that Mozart is better than Debussy? There is no criteria, its just being a elitist conservative pseudo musician.
Please. You can look at the music (Not the recorded sounds, but the actual score) and see what the composer did in regards to the structure of the piece. The form, the orchestration, the complexity of harmonic development, the faithfulness to the genre s/he is composing in (And if deviations from the conventions of the genre made sense). These are, more or less, measureable and objective. There is a reason we remember Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart rather than Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf.
and once again...........enjoying something more=/=something is better.
[QUOTE="fluffy_puppy666"]
[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]
>Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.
No, you cant. I ask you again: what criteria can you use to claim that one piece of art is better than another piece of art? Saying that one composer is better than another is like saying that "red" is a more beautiful color than "blue", it just makes no sense. If you think that a better composer is a composer that does more complex composing, then its your opinion; if you think that a better composer is the one that makes original composing, than its your opinion. One does not just look at a Van Gogh painting and say that its better or worse than Michelangelo, friend. [QUOTE="Nuck81"] Their music will stand the test of time. Sure there are great composers that will hold up over time. Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven. And I may not have listened to all artists that existed after the classical period, but have listened to far more than you, and more than probably all but a handfull of others on this forum. I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school. What your musical education and background?Shmiity
>I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school.
>What your musical education and background?
You just showed how ignorant and how bad you are at your career just by using this fallaciousargument. If you have never heard of it, the name of the "argument" you used is AD HOMINEM, search for it and never do it again, its shameful and makes you look ridiculous. No offense.
>Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven.
As i just said to another friend on this thread, saying that one artist is better than another is like saying that "red" is better than "blue", there is no better color, there is no better artist. Art is not a concrete mathematical thing that you measure, art is not good or bad, art only depends on who sees it. Me, personally, i prefer Claude Debussy WAY more than Mozart. For me the classical period was really boring, the romantic and impressionest artists for me were much better. What criteria do you use to say that Mozart is better than Debussy? There is no criteria, its just being a elitist conservative pseudo musician.
I also will jump on this Nuck hate train. Hey dude, I have a f*cking music degree, too. Except I understand that how complicated/sophisticated a song is has no relation to how good it is- Or how it will survive the test of time. Classical music/jazz snobs are my least favorite people. You know what? Katy Perry has good f*cking songs. So do The Killers. Beethoven can roll over in his grave. There are awesome songs from every era. Giving one era dominance over the other really makes me want to shred your diploma. I will run down the halls to "Mr brightside" while youre busy solfeging figured bass from 300 years ago.
:lol: You're a clown.Music of that period tells stories, and does not even need words most of the time. I personally love the music of the Baroque period for that reason. Bach fugues are complex yet harmonically beautiful. Those fugues tell amazing stories and emotions ranging from pure joy and love to darkness, anger, and sadness, all arranged in a transitional form that is called music.kingfire11Yeah, I often get synthesia when I listen to that stuff.
What I really like about classical music is its complexity that is so rare nowadays. Classical music is complex and technically hard to master. Now compare that to the "sheet music" of a Bieber song, where the notes can be learned and played during a skillful musician's lunch break. Music of that period tells stories, and does not even need words most of the time. I personally love the music of the Baroque period for that reason. Bach fugues are complex yet harmonically beautiful. Those fugues tell amazing stories and emotions ranging from pure joy and love to darkness, anger, and sadness, all arranged in a transitional form that is called music. "Most" music today is dry and empty. It feels completely commercialized, with no artistic touch or humanity what so ever. kingfire11
That is not entirely accurate. The idea of music telling a story (besides opera and song, of course) is a Romantic view on music (Post-Berlioz). Affections does come in to play though, see Doctrine of Affections.
F*cking dope melodies and rhythms. Thats it.ShmiityExcept with the music created by the long dead composers has an element that modern pop doesn't... "reinterpretation" of an idea in numerous different ways. Most modern pop music is a pre-recorded, electronically produced drum/guitar track with a few verses on a single chorus repeated ad nauseum for 2-2.5 minutes.
I like listening to them in plays
Hans Zimmer is the modern day Mozart.TrueAmerican007Hanz Zimmer writes none of his own music, its all Ghost Writers.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment