Lyric Suite

Skyclad I'll sing to you of days departed, Times when men proud and stouthearted carved their names on history's bloody page, The corpse of chivalry long dead Is turning in his loamy bed indignant at your new 'enlightened' age White-collared knights at boardroom tables dream their own financial fables, Fight to make their incomes larger--mounted on their 'credit charges.' Held within the safety of this mundane existence-- Facing endless grey Mondays of dull nine to fives, We all climb the social ladder with a dogged persistence, Forging chains we shall carry for the rest of our lives. We cannot see through clothes may maketh man they cannot give us shelter-- On this mortal helter-skelter if our loyalties are torn, Between the values we believe in and the egos we are feeding-- We stand all together naked as the day we were born. And so cast off the lies that are our lives and find the truth within. SKYCLAD--the veil has lifted, SKYCLAD--now I see through, SKYCLAD--your mask of illusion, SKYCLAD--to the fake that is you. Financial wizards read their spells from filofaxes Concrete hells of their own making pass for Avalon. These men self-made by shrewd investing spend their weekends child-molesting, Lost in 'green-belt' dreams they do no wrong. Your mortgage payment rocket-- Like your blood pressure rising, Executive stresses are the dragons you fight. In your Armani armour you are practically shining, So have no code of honour--you must always be right. Just give me a simple life--my tastes are not demanding, And whatever life may hand me I'll accept it with good grace; For I'm just a simple lad with few ideas about my station, So ale and song will apt suffice to keep me in my place. How can you know the cost of everything yet never see its worth? If you think because you've paid the piper you should call the tune-- Well think again my friend life is a gain of chance, By Fate's command we win or lose, But still retain the right to choose If we should stumble on--or shed our cares and dance SKYCLAD--the veil has lifted, SKYCLAD--no I see through, SKYCLAD--your mask of illusion, SKYCLAD--to the fake that is you. You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning,' But the truth is slowly dawning--things are getting out of hand, We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin-- Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand. And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within

Thoughtful lyrics? One of the reasons i could never get into Iced Earth back in my metal days were the badly written lyrics. That, and the terrible singing. Then again, Iced Earth are supposed to be inspired by Iron Maiden, another band with terrible lyrics. Lucky for the latter, i couldn't understand a single word of english when i first got into them...

That defenatly seems to be the case.

^ O RLY I was a metal head once, in my teens. Looking back in retrospective, i can say i knew absolutly jack about music...

No, it's a typical case of average minds not able to come into terms with something that transcends their limited understanding. Exploitable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yet, it's the truth, unless you also agree the music of Bach IS nothing but incomprehensible rubbish...

Not at all. You just implied the complexity and deeper meaning within the classical pantheon is nothing but a social construct which i and obviously anybody who shares the same conviction was led to believe by society. Yes, but what does that have to do with whether classical music actually is or isn't more complex then popular music? Remember, you didn't just outright call me an elitist and left it at that (which is fine, i don't care), you actually implied my belief in the inherent superiority of classical music to the likes of NSync is something i was bought into believing by some sort of elitist leading power to be, without proof nor leading argument i might add, just the implication i'm in denial. If you think i shouldn't generalize about NSync fans, that's fine. But the point remains that classical music IS more complex, deeper and more demanding then a boy band will ever hope to be. To imply people of a certain intellectual predisposition would gravitate towards the latter rather then the former it's no elitist rambling, it's just logical. Show me the experiment in which Zimbardo, Milgram or Bandura finally proves beyond reproach that classical music isn't really more complex then a boy band, we were all just brainwashed into thinking Mozart was a genius...

Happy? I don't know about that. I'd say Roger Waters for instance it's a text book case of pathological despair, far more depressing then most metal i ever heard (which is often just against)...

^ My english always deteriorates after a while...

Erm, a correction here, i actually meant to say independent melodic voices, not different.

BTW, i present thee, the enemies of classical music... (w00t)

Well, of course i can't prove any of that. Maybe somebody could ask what type of music people from mensa listen to... So, wait, let me get this straight. Not only you are accusing every single human soul that has loved and supported classical music for, say, the last 400 years to be in denial, but we are also all facists now.

Its disassociation <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, i lose... Ho well, fixed!

Actually, contrapuntal polyphony is perfectly valid in that counterpoint does NOT refer to the same thing as polyphony. Almost, but not quite. Polyphony from the middle ages for instance is not usually referred to as contrapuntal. And yes, meaning what, that you know about fugues now, or when you were 5 year old? You can use lower case letters to rapresent minor scales...

Actually i have not. I'm philosophically contrary to the disassociation of music from performance, which makes me very shy of electronic music, even when composed by classical composers. I have a few recordings of eletronic music by Varese (who's considered the father of eletronic music), Boulez, Ligeti and even Frank Zappa, but i never checked anything from popular culture, aside from the usual exposure to techno, trance and stuff like that...

BTW, here's my view of classical music against popular music, adapted from something i wrote a while ago on another forum. As i said, according to Aaron Copland (from 'what to listen for in music'), there are different planes in which music exists : the sensual plane, the expressive plane, and the musical plane. The first two need no explanation and is pretty much how everybody listens to music. Those two planes are generally subjective and not up for discussing. The third plane is what i'm going to talk about. This plane is where music exists purely based on the notes themselves and their manipulation. Most people are berely conscious of this plane, but in order to fully appreciate music one need to learn how to listen to it in an intelligent way, as Copland puts it, and this is the main concern of this plane. There are different ways to brake down music on this level, and one is by separating the four basic elements : Rhythm, Melody, Harmony and Tone Color. Then we have Texture, which comes in three different basic kinds : Monophonic, Homophonic and Polyphonic, plus Heterophony, Monody and Micropolyphony. Finally, we have Structure, which is mainly how the music unfolds over time. In classical music, structure can be shaped after specific forms, but most of all structure is often based on the principle of repetition. Repetition comes in different categories and their subsequent forms, which are as follow : 1) Exact repetition 2) Sectional or simmetrical repetition (binary form, ternary form, rondo, free sectional arrangement) 3) Repetition by variation (basso ostinato, passagaglia, chanone, theme and variations) 4) Repetition by fugal treatment (fugue, concerto grosso, chorale prelude, motets and madrigals) 5) Repetition by development (sonata) Structure also manifests itself in the principle of non-repetition, which is the hardest form of musical structure and is not as common as the rest. Now, if you take each single of those elements, and you make a comparison between popular music and classical music, you'll find that the latter is far ahead in terms of how the notes are manipulated on top of the sheer expressive quality of the music. For instance, take counterpoint. Counterpoint is one of the most intellectually stimulating elements in music. Bach is considered one of the pinnacles of western genius because of his mastery of counterpoint. Counterpoint stems from polyphony, in which you have 2 or 3 different melodic voices interacting with each other (the brain cannot process more then 3), thus the harmony is then created vertically rather then chordally. You can find solid counterpoint in popular music, like for instance in Frank Zappa (who's actually considered a real composer by some), or King Crimson, but compared to the classical masters, how many groups stand their ground? Mozart music for instance literally drips with little games of counterpoint so that each musical ideas stems from contrapuntal interaction out of other musical ideas. His music becomes like a fractal, which always reveals something new if looked from different angles. Very few composers can do that, and this is why Mozart is one of the all time geniuses. In comparison, most Popular music is generally painfully homophonic i fear. What about harmony? 19th century composers brought harmony and chromaticism to their braking point, what can you find in popular music other then the usually rehashed chord progressions based on basic harmony? Again, King Crimson has interesting harmonic manipulations, and so do several other bands, but they are few and cannot really compare to what composers did after Schoenberg and the members of the second viennese school. Rhytmn? I admit, early western classical music wasn't very strong in reguards of rhythm, but classical music from other parts of the world pushed rhythm to high levels and even western music caught up eventually. In popular music, the only time you'll find rhythmical manipulations is in things like progressive rock, or rap. Most of the times popular music is based on the same 4/4 simmetrical rhythms. Of course, there are different levels in which popular music stands well, like tone coloring (some bands have interesting colors), or idiomatic (music written specifically for a particular instrument with the intention of bringing out said instrument capabilities. Paganini was a classical idiomatic composer) virtuoso playing, but other then that popular music is generally lacking in any of the elements that make music interesting. Most of all however, popular music is severly lacking in structure. 90% of structure in popular music is based on exact repetition. You start with a short, non developing theme or melody, and you repeat it. Then you introduce another theme or melody, and repeat that until you re-introduce previous themes or rhythms, and repeat those again. Wash, rinse and repeat ad nauseam. Certain bands like Pink Floyd or Opeth come with sectional repetition, and sometimes you get bands with repetition by variation (often jazz inspired). As far as i know nobody has ever even tried to attempt non-repetitious structures. All in all i can say that you can find many interesting ways in which the musical plane is dealt with in popular music, i just see a lot more going on in classical.

Please, feel free to 'prove' to me that the deeper and inherently complex qualities i and many others find in classical music are the product of a 'social conditioning'. So far you have said nothing to back up your claims. Of course, couldn't it possibly be true that there are in fact such qualities to be found in art music? Noooo, of course not... <---- your argument so far. " I claim i find a deeper quality and complexity to classical music because it's the truth. You can argue the expressive quality of music is up to the individual, and i'm perfectly willing to agree with that to a point. Complexity, alas, that is a purely objective measure and i'm afraid classical music has an hard edge on that angle over anything but jazz. Regardless, i find the notion of social conditioning dictating the very nature of one of the greatest exponents of western culture to be utterly without claim. It's beyond absurd. I can't believe you are really suggesting people have been duped in believing this for more then a thousand of years. By your argument, anything we believe it's the result of social conditioning. BTW, since you pretty much admitted you think the inherent complexity of classical music is down to social conditioning, why did you deny this the first time i called you on it? And just so you know, yes, the whole idea behind the Mozart Effect is completely bogus. There is no such thing. In order to understand Mozart you need grasp his music on a cognitive level. Exposing pre-borns to Mozart is as effective as bringing your pregnant wife to a biology class and hope your son is going to become a scientific genius. It's all the more amusing if you consider those Mozart for babies cds do not contain those works Mozart is considered a genius for, they are just a selection of pieces Mozart wrote when he was a toddler and among the simplest music ever written. Define irony. To me, the idea of elitism implies the belief of personal superiority, but when i analyze my feelings i don't see myself as an elitist as much as a realist. In the end, while i do like to entertain the idea i'm actually smarter then some stupid kid fed on MTV, i'm not as smart as that, really, and i have enough personal flaws to really question any claim of superiority on anybody. Still, i do like to generalize on things, and in the case of NSync fans it's usually a safe bet, but i generally do it just to be contrary (like in the case of my lash against Japanese culture). It also pisses off politically corrected drones, which i find amusing. Of course, whether i'm an elitist or not has nothing to do with the fact classical music is inherently more complex then pop. You are shifting the argument to an ad hominem position but fail to address the object of discussion. You are also making a lot of assumptions yourself. For instance, i do like a lot of popular music as well. In the end, when have i ever said one can only enjoy music that is deep and complex? My taste in music is as eclectic as they come, and i'm sure that's the case with Stephen Hawkings. Still doesn't mean everybody can enjoy classical music. The fact some classical pieces are very popular among pop culture means nothing and truly reveals your ignorance on the subject. People don't listen to the Ride of the Valkyries vecause it's harmonically daring, like Wagner music usually is, but because it's a catchy, simple piece of music anybody can appreciate. Just like the 'moonlight' sonata, which was not rated very highly by Beethoven, who actually resented the popularity of this piece (and only of the first movement to boot) over his other, more interesting sonatas. And what about Mozart most famous sonata? The k545 sonata in C, a piece meant for beginners of the piano? Of course, there's nothing wrong with those pieces per-se, really. Classical music is a vast body of music that encompasses everything, from the simplest, most catchy tune to masterpieces of colossal proportions. BTW, i actually do not like Wagner, did you know that? All that social conditioning and yet i'm able to retain my own personal taste, how is that possible? And still, you demonstrate how little you know on the subject. Everybody can enjoy music from a purely sensual point of view, even complex music. Of course, did you really understand the contrapuntal polyphony behind the fugue, or did you just found the sounds pretty? Do you now? As well, did you know the Toccata and Fugue in d is not really that complex of a piece and is of doubtful authorship (that is, probably NOT by Bach)? Please...

Tsk, try the Rite of Spring for some awesome backup dancers, truly, it's a riot...

Well, you may have implied that indirectly, but that's the impression i received. If you mean to say classical music is used as a way for some people to make themselves look smart, or cultured, you are not telling me anything new, but what does that have to do with the real inherent (intellectual) quality of the music itself? Do you think everybody could grasp the concept of serialism or a five voiced fugue without having the intellectual predisposition for it? Would a Nsync fan find the formal development of a symphony interesting or compelling, even if explained? Hey, good luck having them make sense of something like specralism, new complexity or other developments in contemporary classical music, some of which are completely out of whack, even for me. I seriously cannot understand why there is such a stigma against the idea art is also a function of the intellect and that not everybody is up to it...

The impression i got is that he thinks classical music doesn't have any deeper quality or higher complexity per-se, it's just marketed that way. That effectively means he thinks there is no deeper quality or higher complexity in the likes of Beethoven, or am i wrong? If that's the case, i can't even begin to express the massive amount of ignorance revealed in such an assumption.

Henri Dutilleux - Concerto for Cello

An elite classified by an higher education and understanding, not their presupposed higher social status. n No, it's a typical case of average minds not able to come into terms with something that transcends their limited understanding. Bach was accused of filling his music with an 'excess of art', but part of the reasons he was left forgotten after his death is that the highly polyphonic language of which he was the absolute master was the summit of a musical style that at that point was considered 'learned' and 'old fashioned', and pretty much a dead end. Starting from the middle ages all the way through the renaissance and still much of the baroque, high art was the patronage of the church, and composers were able to explore and develop the highest and most complex forms of artistical expressions. Those men were scholars, artists and the keepers of western civilization through the dark ages all in one. This of course didn't bode well with the church, which constantly complained against this focus on art rather then the basic function of music as a tool for religious worship. During the ranaissance the church attempted to destroy polyphony on the grounds it the made the text of the mass hard to understand. After a while, changes in the fabric of western society begun to shift the role of music from a function of religious worship to secular entertainment and light distraction for the rich nobility. This change begun during the Baroque era, where the complex polyphony and abstract modality of the renaissance begun to give away to a simpler monophony and the invention of tonality, both of which were important developments in western music but which were abused as way of dumping down the contrapuntal complexity of renaissance music. This development eventually lead to the complete abandon of polyphony in favor of a style which was light, frivolous and relatively simple, called galante, again, to entertain a superficial nobility. Composers of this era (chief among them Mozart and Haydn) had to device a system (generally referred to as high classical style) where their music appeared simple on the outset but still offered a good level of hidden complexity for the benefic of the connoisseur. Enter the 19th century, and now complex music begun to enjoy greater support thanks to a hightly educated class of connoisseurs, a few of which happened to be wealthy enough to support the arts. Thus the myth of classical music and much of the missconcieved facts surrounding the art were created, like the steroetype that classical music is for rich, sophisticated people, just as the original connoisseurs were replaced by pousers and wannabes, who could only 'see' greatness in the music they were told was great (like Beethoven), but were not able to grasp new music, thus, new composers were constantly left to survive by giving concerts or taking teaching positions as most of them never made a dime off writing music. So you see, the truth is that classical music had to fight to survive for much of it's history against the obtusity of the church, the frivolous libertine nobility and the ignorant masses or pretentious wannabes of the 19th century. Actually, 'society' no longer bothers with that. The burgeons class of the 19th century has made a complete turn around and it no longer supports music, though they still keep up on the fake markets of ****ty art. Big orchestras have been struggling to survive for years and they are always on the verge of financial bankruptcy (the San Francisco orchestra sold more tickets by performing the music of Final Fantasy then they ever did with Beethoven or Brahms) and most modern composers have to sell their internal organs to have their music performed. Back in the early 20th century people referred to jazz as the low brow underdog against the rich elitism of classical music, even though the average jazz musician made more money then the greatest classical composers could ever dream of. Today they are both on life support as the rich and famous buy expensive seats to 50 cents concerts or join astronomically expensive parties where they engage in more drugs, more sex and more ****ty music than you can even dream of. "The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." - Kurt Vonnegut I'm sorry, but if you truly believe there is no difference between Breatny Spears and a Beethoven string quartet, then you are an idiot, plain and simple...

Well, my musical upbringing was a little better in that my father used to be a talented musician, and even though he quit playing music in his early 20s and never picked an instrument again, he always talked about music (mostly the 60s and early 70s rock he grew up with). Still, i can't say i really had a musical education. I didn't wake up to classical until i was 22 and since then i had to learn pretty much everything from scratch. The biggest problem i had is that a lot of the 'concepts' dealt in classical music cannot be learned but need to be understood, generally after a lot of listening. There are a lot of logical leaps involved and you still need some basic informations to guide you. The flip side of this is that you don't need to know anything about theory, because theory merely describes what occurs aurally, and aural understanding is the only thing that matters.

Nonsense. As far back as ancient Greece, classical (art) music has always been for a selected elite, and many of the composers that are considered great today were relatively unknown and always miss understood in their own time. Bach for instance was relatively obscure in his own time and his music was often critisized for being difficoult and incomprehensible to most. He was pretty much forgotten after his death until Mendelssohn jump started a new wave of popularity among the educated burgeous public, where classical music survived for most of the 19th century and part of the 20th century whilst the general population focused on frivolous and now long forgotten popular salon entertainers of the times. Things are no different today then they were then (except popular music wasn't as mass merketed today), and no amount of politically corrected anti-intellectualism is going to change that.

I know there are a lot of people which are not affected by music, and i find it fascinating. As far back as i can remember, music always had a profound effect on my life. Not listening to music is something i just cannot fanthom. That said, perhaps popular music is just not for you, you should try something a little more on the 'serious' side (classical, jazz or this 'complex' death metal i keep hearing about)...

Let's be glad those composers have long since been forgotten...