A question about musical tastes

[Lyric Suite]

Bull****. The best artists in my art classes listen to goddamn hardcore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not everybody who has ability is an artist.

 

Have you ever noticed how some of the greatest musicians are poor song writers?

Edited April 19, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[astr0creep]

Of course, are NSync fans ignorant, or are they too stupid to know any better?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My first thought was to immediately reply that NSync fans are just plain stupid.

However that would be contradicting myself because all I know about NSync is that they are a boyband fabricated by executives, made up of gorgeous(I am secure enough in my manlyness to admit that) young guys to get little girls all excited and, by extension, their money as well.

That being said, although I know I've heard NSync music before, I couldn't name one of their songs or name their members(pun intended) to save my life and therefore I cannot formulate an informed opinion of them.

 

I do know I profoundly despise their type of "music" however and I somehow doubt anyone would be considered stupid for not showing interest in NSync...

[Meshugger]

Metalheads being intelligent? Hahahahahahahaha :D

 

I've seen Slayer, Pantera, Metallica + several others live, and let me say this: Most of them weren't there to play chess, read poetry and discuss Wittgenstein's mathematical theorems.

 

Intelligent persons might like metal, since there are bands that have interesting melodies, lyrics and song structures. But it's certainly not the other way around.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Meshugger

[Darth Drabek]

It takes just as much intelligence for a pop band to craft a melody as a metal band takes to write a riff. There's dumb pop bands and there's dumb metal bands. From the complexity of the material, we tend to assume classical composers were all geniuses, but I'm sure that for every inspired composer there were others who just took their years and years of memorization training and cut and pasted their symphonies, Pro Tools-style.

 

I call bull**** on the "pure" forms of musical expression being a sign of intelligence in people.

[metadigital]

Absolutely not. Music does not show one's intelligence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lucky for some ... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With Meta's grand intelligence, he strikes me as a Backstreet Boys fan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, they did have one or two good poppy hits ... that one with the werewolves and such springs to mind (no idea what it's called).

 

I don't listen to much music; whether that is because of the negative experience I had whilst learning it, because I can't like something if it has words and the diction isn't clear, or because I just don't enjoy it I don't know. And I don't really care, tbh.

 

If I have to listen to music I will choose cerebral (classical), and

[Baley]

I could recommend you some John Zorn or Sun Ra, but I think you'd end up hurting me.

[roshan]

This topic dissappoints me. There is a desperate need for musical elitists on these boards.

[Hassat Hunter]

Metal used to (last time I checked) have good lyrics, but if I can't hear/understand them, then I just get frustrated with the medium.

 

For me it is the less audiable the lyrics are the better the song becomes of it. Good songs are songs where I still don't know the lyrics of after 30 times listening!

 

(but can remember the beat)

Edited April 19, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Lyric Suite]

From the complexity of the material, we tend to assume classical composers were all geniuses, but I'm sure that for every inspired composer there were others who just took their years and years of memorization training and cut and pasted their symphonies, Pro Tools-style.

 

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

[Baley]

I was going to make a flimsy witticism about how while musical elitism dwells here, metal hardly warrants elitism except for a few bands that literally write good music (like Cynic, Atheist, Dredg, Melvins, Fantomas) but I decided not to cause Meta is old and rugged and told me to stop being mean to the other posters.

[Pidesco]

I was going to make a flimsy witticism about how while musical elitism dwells here, metal hardly warrants elitism except for a few bands that literally write good music (like Cynic, Atheist, Dredg, Melvins, Fantomas) but I decided not to cause Meta is old and rugged and told me to stop being mean to the other posters.

 

 

Fantomas is amazing.

 

 

Anyone here miss Faith No More?

[Baley]

Anyone here miss Faith No More?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was one of the lesser Mike Patton bands. ( I know they existed before Patton joined, shut up.)

 

I'd take Mr. Bungle, Fantomas, Lovage or Tomahawk over them any day.

 

But I still listen to Angel Dust now and again.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Baley

[Lyric Suite]

I don't listen to much music;

 

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)...

Edited April 19, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[Baley]

or this 'complex' death metal i keep hearing about

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I love it, but there are like 5 great albums in the whole genre. And it's really just progressive metal without the intrinsic closet heterosexuality of Opeth and their ilk.

 

Anyway, Meta if you're interested, wikipedia:

 

- Neoclassicism

 

- Bebop

 

- Hard bop

 

- Free Jazz

 

- Avant-garde jazz

 

- Jazz Fusion

 

Etc.

[metadigital]

I don't listen to much music;

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)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, my family was hardly musical (although my maternal grandfather apparently could play the piano by ear ... he just never got a chance to because he was working two full-time jobs for his entire adult life).

 

the music master I had in my first boarding school (English Public School, I was nine) was a total ... err ... [insert rude wod for very poor teacher]. That didn't help.

 

I have music that has coincided with various stages of my life, and some tunes that are memorable for that reason, but I do not have music playing on a daily basis. Even when travelling in the car, I will listen to spoken news, current affairs and art / philosophy / analysis.

 

Pop music I find completely inane. Which is interesting, because my partner actually had a couple of top-20 hits ... "

 

Though I do enjoy Opera (although the German stuff is a bit cacophonous), especially Italian.

 

I did like Phantom of the Opera, too.

[alanschu]

I'm going to take a slightly different approach, and feel that the conception that smarter people appreciate jazz and classical over pop because society has placed that expectation to.

[metadigital]

I'm going to take a slightly different approach, and feel that the conception that smarter people appreciate jazz and classical over pop because society has placed that expectation to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are two points to consider, with your stated argument:

1. classical music is patently more complex: music that involves an orchestra of seventy instruments playing for an hour versus a synthesizer and an out-of-tune teenager?
   
2. classical music, as Mr Suite pointed out, stimulates the mind, not the body.
   

[Lyric Suite]

I'm going to take a slightly different approach, and feel that the conception that smarter people appreciate jazz and classical over pop because society has placed that expectation to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[alanschu]

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.

 

Sounds like it's done a good job of perpetuating its status of it then. You say straight up that as far back as ancient Greece, classical music was for the selected elite.

 

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.

 

This just sounds typical of elitists not liking something that's new. Society projects an aura of sophistication about liking "high arts" such as the Opera and whatnot. Not surprisingly, being a fan of high culture tends to be more expensive than pop culture. Society's elite has been using it as a way to separate themselves from the "general population" for generations.

 

People are so quick to say that the only reason why Britney Spears is so popular is not because of her talent, but because of the executives that have marketted her so well. It couldn't possibly be that the state of classical music and high culture is also effectively marketted, and has been for quite some time.

[Lyric Suite]

Well, my family was hardly musical (although my maternal grandfather apparently could play the piano by ear ... he just never got a chance to because he was working two full-time jobs for his entire adult life).

 

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.

[morgos]

Well, my family was hardly musical (although my maternal grandfather apparently could play the piano by ear ... he just never got a chance to because he was working two full-time jobs for his entire adult life).

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:cool: Im in to rock, jazz,reggae,ska,punk,blues, (w00t) classical,.............

[Lyric Suite]

Sounds like it's done a good job of perpetuating its status of it then.  You say straight up that as far back as ancient Greece, classical music was for the selected elite.

 

An elite classified by an higher education and understanding, not their presupposed higher social status. n

 

This just sounds typical of elitists not liking something that's new.

 

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.

 

Society projects an aura of sophistication about liking "high arts" such as the Opera and whatnot.  Not surprisingly, being a fan of high culture tends to be more expensive than pop culture.  Society's elite has been using it as a way to separate themselves from the "general population" for generations.

 

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.

 

People are so quick to say that the only reason why Britney Spears is so popular is not because of her talent, but because of the executives that have marketted her so well.  It couldn't possibly be that the state of classical music and high culture is also effectively marketted, and has been for quite some time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"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...

Edited April 19, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[alanschu]

Thanks for proving my point.

 

If you cannot understand the perpetuation of elitism through music, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.

 

 

I'm a bit busy at work at the moment. But I'll perform a dissection of some of your points a bit later.

Edited April 19, 2006 by alanschu

[Darth Drabek]

I don't think he's saying there is no difference, merely that they might have something in common.

 

 

Effective marketing, that is, not backup dancers.

[alanschu]

I don't think he's saying there is no difference, merely that they might have something in common.

 

 

Effective marketing, that is, not backup dancers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*ding* *ding*