Brahms was know to use tavern pieces as well as some other composers and
some composers are known for using folk songs. This is stuff you don't
often get in music appreciation classes though I would think it would
make them more interesting. It the music history profs that teach it
and sometimes you get it from symphony conductors who know the "inside
stories."
On 03/02/2014 12:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Yes, I agree, we shouldn't do this more often.
-- Emperor Snot
---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote:
*DoctorDumbass, just to make a point here: the distinction you
imagined was not the one I was making when I used the term "serious
music." If you hadn't been so snotty about it, I would have explained
that the counterpart of "serious" music isn't "not-serious music" but
"popular music." "Classical" is an iffy term, as Bhairitu points out,
because, strictly speaking, it's limited to a particular historical
period. (Although not that many classical composers used tavern songs
in their work.) Last night in NYC there was a concert performance of
Alban Berg's opera /Wozzeck/, written around 1920. The music is
atonal, very far from "classical," but it's certainly not "popular"
either. I don't know any term other than "serious" that covers that
whole range of music.*
*
*
*So if you had the idea that my use of "serious" was intended as a
putdown of Neil Young, you own it, not me.*
fuck, yeah.
Music is an art form and it will take many forms of
expression. The arts in their nature are spiritual in that
they have a powerful ability to shift consciousness and emotions.
Musicians struggle with the terms for the public for musical
pieces (or in some cases sound pastiches). "Serious" seems a
bit too serious if you consider that many of the famous
orchestral composers stole tunes from their local tavern.
"Classical" refer to a period in music and the arts, just as
there are "impressionist" and "romanticist" periods too.
Best not to be bothered by such labels and enjoy freedom of
expression while we still have it.
On 03/02/2014 06:30 AM, doctordumbass@...
<mailto:doctordumbass@...> wrote:
"Neal" Young plays very serious music - It is an interesting
distinction that some people make, between serious, and 'not
serious' music. Someone recently told me that electronic
and/or sampled music, is not real music.
On the one hand, I can see that musicians like Neil Young, do
not try to master the classical works, or play music with a
lot of tradition behind it. On the other, I've been a fan of
his sound, since, "After the Gold Rush". He has inspired me
in a lot of ways - far more than any classical music.
Music is said to be the most abstract of the arts. I find it
amusing that someone who diligently copies Mozart, for
example, is hailed as a prodigy, yet someone doing the same
thing with a Rembrandt, is labeled a forger.
---In [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>, <authfriend@...>
<mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
*Yeah, not quite the same thing. I'm talking about serious
music and highly trained singers.*
Justin Timberlake, for one, sings in a much higher voice than
his regular voice. Same for Neal Young I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSVHoHyErBQ
---In [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>,
<authfriend@...> <mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
I'm not a big fan of countertenors myself; the voices
always sound a little strained to me. But this dude
is special, not just the voice but the musicality.
The ear is more important than any musical knowledge
(for the listener, at any rate).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmyLkjxKCNo
Phew! And this is not generally my kind of
"thing" but it certainly evokes all sorts of
primal, albeit refined primal, sensations.
His voice and those instruments and the light
and the setting and the crystal hanging from
the ceiling. All of these things transported
me to a long-ago time. Thank you for that. I
am an ignoramus when it comes to knowing
about music but my ear seems to make up for
what I lack in theoretical musical knowledge.
