arete1952

I knew Dana Countryman who collaborates with Perrey. We met many years ago and considered getting into a band together.

The link was dead but I was able to find a clip of the music on YouTube. No offense but I find this music incredibly cheesy and tacky.

Beethoven's 9th is one of the great works of Western art....make that of art, period. Concentrate on the MUSICAL excellence of the work...its power, its expressiveness and incredibly high level of technical achievement. To deprive yourself of this amazing music because of the message of the text of the final movement would be a serious mistake. By the way, for what it is worth, most classical musicians consider the final movement to be the weakest of the four, an opinion in which I concur. The first three movements are what make this symphony truly great. Best regards, Ken

Not to split hairs...but to split hairs : The phrase "Contemporary Classical/Romantic Music" does not really make sense in the strict musicological sense. The correct term for what people refer to as classical is: Western Art Music. As such the question should be "Contemporary Art Music in a Classical/Romantic style?" Best regards, Ken

Your point is well taken...to an extent. I assume when you write of 'complex large-scale forms' you mean those longer MOVEMENTS (in sonata-allegro or sonata rondo and other post-Baroque forms) found in the symphonies of Beethoven and the Romantics. While Bach composed large-scale pieces, they consist of movements/sections whose lengths (and formal complexity) never approach that of selected movements from the symphonic works of Beethoven, et al. I still disagree, however, with your use of the term 'structurally simple'. There is more than 'local contrapuntal complexity' in certain Bach fugues...a triple fugue ain't 'structurally simple'. I disagree. "...making completely different types of music"? Hardly (well maybe Glass as he can't be taken seriously as a composer of art music...more like orchestrated, stretched out pop music). Bach, Telemann, Wagner, Rach....all worked within the tradition of Western art music. They can be, and are, compared based on their compositional technique, the power, beauty and profundity of their music, their output, the presence of their music throughout history and on the current music scene, and the respect and admiration granted them by professional classical musicians. In all those areas Bach is superior...even in the 'power and beauty' category...there is more to musical beauty than lush chords or more to power than bombastic gestures. I understand the point you are making...I just don't agree with. The reality is that only on an Objectivist website would the notion (as asked in the initial post): "Is Rachmaninov superior to Bach?" be seriously considered.

...simplicity of Bach? I am guessing then you have never heard his 'Art of the Fugue'? Interesting to find such a 'relativistic' response on an Objectivist site...but I have seen plenty of them when it comes to discussions of music. And again, in response to your notion that Bach is 'structually simple' I direct your attention to his 'Art of the Fugue'

Tensorman replied: Exactly. I can't imagine there are any professional classical musicians (performers, composers, conductors) who, if asked to rate the two composers OBJECTIVELY(i.e., not based on their personal tastes/preferences but based on their objective assessment of Bach's and Rach's compositional abilities and accomplishments) would pick Sergei over Johann. Bach is arguably the greatest composer in the history of Western art music. Rachmaninov doesn't even make the Top 40.

Refreshing for someone to mention a Dvorak work other than his Ninth symphony or cello concerto. Dvorak is one of my favorites. I enjoy his symphonies, but my favorite works are his Slavonic Dances (both sets), Legends, the two serenades and the Czech Suite.

Exactly. Thanks for your posts Korthor, and your concern for what is arguably the most important facet of art: FORM...it is a facet that seems to be almost ignored in the various art/music/literature threads on this site. Speaking of the one art which I know best, Western art music, it can be argued that its greatest achievement has been the development of large-scale forms...a more important facet than music's emotional "wallop" which seems to be of primary interest in these parts. To quote Richard Halley: "This is the payment I demand. Not many can afford it. I don't mean your enjoyment, I don't mean your emotion--emotions be damned!--I mean your understanding and the fact that your enjoyment was the same nature as mine, that it came from the same source: from your intelligence, from the conscious judgment of a mind able to judge my work by the standard of the same values went to write it--I mean, not the fact that you felt, but that you felt what I wished you to feel, not the fact that you admire my work, but that you admire it for the things I wished to be admired."

Just curious...what Classical music do you consider bad?

In composing his "Art of the Fugue", I seriously doubt Bach's primary (or secondary or tertiary) concern was conveying specific emotions. The same can be said for numerous other works by him and other masters of Western art music.

Azelma extracted this quote from the article: "If you love music, if you really love music, you'll appreciate all music, in some way or another, because ANY music is better than NO music." This is not the case for me. There are many types of music which are not worthy of my appreciation and if given the choice between listening to a type of music which I hate, such as rap (which barely qualifies as music), and listening to no music, I will go with no music.

Yes, I have listened to them. As for name-dropping, I will respond to you as I responded to someone else in this thread who leveled the same criticism: As a trained classical musician I have been listening to, studying and sometimes performing the works of those composers for many years...I know much of their music intimately and understand and appreciate it on both a technical and emotional level. Have you listened to the composers I mentioned...any or all of them? And from one of my earlier posts, something for you to consider: "...the one musician that AR presented as on the same level as Galt, Reardon, et al was a composer of classical music...not some pop music tunesmith."

QUOTE (Richard Halley) This is the payment I demand. Not many can afford it. I don't mean your enjoyment, I don't mean your emotion--emotions be damned!--I mean your understanding and the fact that your enjoyment was the same nature as mine, that it came from the same source: from your intelligence, from the conscious judgment of a mind able to judge my work by the standard of the same values went to write it--I mean, not the fact that you felt, but that you felt what I wished you to feel, not the fact that you admire my work, but that you admire it for the things I wished to be admired. And remember: the one musician that AR presented as on the same level as Galt, Reardon, et al was a composer of classical music...not some pop music tunesmith.

Adrian Hester: Bravo and many thanks for your very perceptive, excellent responses. Well done! Best, Ken

Ah, I have been labeled a "snob".....thank you JMS! And as for simply reciting famous old names: as a trained classical musician I have been listening to, studying and sometimes performing the works of those composers...I know much of their music intimately and appreciate it on both a technical and emotional level. This is too funny! "Useful opinion"? You mean one that conforms with your own? Well I know many people who do like them all...they tend to be people truly knowledgable about music however. The definitions are "meaningless, nonessential" to you...but not to people who really know and understand classical music.

Yes, like that.

I would be happy to post an analysis of this movement to prove your statement false,

In the case of Beethoven's Fifth and the famous motive you quote: yes. the motive itself is very simple. But the manner in which Beethoven constructs a four-movement symphony, using this motive IN EVERY movement so as to achieve unity and integration is extremely sophisticated. There is much more to great classical music than great melodies. Arguably the greatest achievement of Western art music (the proper term for what most people call classical and from hereon referred to as WAM) is the development of large-scale forms. Form is never mentioned in these threads (and I know the reason which I will not get into here) but it is a crucial element which should be considered in the evaluation of music...and popular music's lack (extreme lack) of any kind of formal interest is a prime reason it must be considered far less sophisticated than WAM.

I am not quite clear on what you mean by that. There is plenty of simple, inoffensive music and plenty of sophisticated, offensive music. Sophisticated and offensive are not opposites. If, however, you mean it cannot be objectively stated and demonstrated that classical music is more sophisticated than pop music, then you are wrong. I can easily demonstrate how classical music is much more sophisticated than popular. For example, if I can sit down with someone and present a comparison of, say, a Bach fugue with their favorite pop song I can show how the Bach fugue displays much greater musical sophistication (formal, contrapuntal, harmonic, melodic, rhythmic) and required far more compositional technique. I can even use a much less complex piece than a fugue...let's say a Schubert art song (which actually is more direct comparison, i.e., art song vs. pop song)...same result. And that brings up the very limited formal aspects of pop music...but it is time for bed, so more on that tomorrow. Best, Ken

I guess it depends on one's standards, one's "highest values". My highest musical values are J.S. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Monteverdi, Palestrina, Wagner, Dvorak, Schubert, Stravinsky....so using their music as my standard, I would answer your question: "No"

punk: I agree with everything you wrote...100%. The light, "trashy", simplistic stuff is what I consider entertainment as opposed to art...and entertainment has its place. Entertainment, at its best, can be enjoyable, fun, etc. There is some popular music which I enjoy very much (although 95% of my listening is to classical) and there have been TV shows and many of what I call "popcorn" movies (Star Wars series, etc.) that I have enjoyed. And I have read and enjoyed my share of "light" reading. About entertainment, however: 1. I see it for what it is and do not attempt to validate or justify my consumption of it by making more of it than is, which means: 2. I place it realistically and objectively in my values hierarchy, i.e., on a much lower level than art, which means: 3. I limit (severely) my consumption of it Now I have to go watch an episode of "Mystery Science Theater 3000". Best, Ken

The task of thinking critically about popular music is not one I avoid at all. As a trained composer I AUTOMATICALLY listen/think critically when listening to any type of music and I would bet that the author of the article is also very capable of critical thinking/listening. The point is, if I listen closely and critically to rock or rap or metal or any other type of popular music, I hear virtually no musical sophistication, no subletly, no depth, no richness, nothing of any real musical beauty or greatness or profundity. To put it bluntly, speaking on a purely musical level, any type of popular music offers very, very little. At best, if I find the music attractive for some reason, I am entertained and I can enjoy it and accept it at that “entertainment” level. But that is about it.

They didn't need to be; they were playing rock music.

I'll join you in that!