|
Post by GunstarHero on Jan 17, 2004 1:57:52 GMT
right i haven't read evry1 elses comments so i may be going back over some other peoples points but anyway James: Your article is overbearing and ridiciculously biased with not a hint of reasoning behind it on the paper it is (for the sake of this figure of speech) written on, I have nothing against your like of classical music, each to their own, for me classical music is boring as hell, too long winded to have anything to it and with not enough going on for it to hold my attention. "I beg to differ; classical music is no such thing - each piece is individually crafted by the hands of the composer whose marvelous mind conceived the idea and whose genius gave birth to and nurtured it into a well rounded and emotive piece." well im going to have to beg to differ from you, classical music has no personality or life to it, its all from a very restricted set of possibilities, with a lack of effects the music becomes staid and boring with nothing new throughout the genre, the whole genre has been stuck where it came from, nothing to lift out of the doldrums of repetitiveness, yes these guys were talented but why work with a basic set of instruments when you can move up to the big league, classical music is a relic of modern day music and should be left firmly in the past until points where it is still suitable for use, such as in films where it can fit perfectly, as music alone it does not cut the mustard any longer. "Pray tell, readers, which modern bands or artists can claim to do such a thing? I may confidently sit here, smug grin adorning my face and say “none”. They sit there, come up with lyrics which, if you cut the repeating lines out, are at least a quarter shorter; include in this butchery the removal of the heart of modern music, vocal sounds such as “ohhhhohhhhh” and “mmmmmm”, and it would resemble a vegetarian steak pie - all crust and no filling." Now i say this as a friend that is pretentious horsesh1t "blah blah length of tracks blah some random composers did blah blah" cant be bothered to quote the long paragraph so how does the length of a track affect your enjoyment of it, just because you prefer for a slow and steady build up to crashing concerto or something like that in classical music doesnt mean that other people cannot prefer a shorter more succinct piece of music which in my opinion is far better. Woohoo this composer blokie has done all this and you know what one of my favourite artists, Phil Collins has done over 10 solo albums and about the same amount in the band genesis, thats probably the same amount of music as this composer bloke, hes a writer, drummer and singer, and hes not from the 19th century, phil collins has just turned 50, is deaf in one ear, has the possibility of going dead in the other and is still producing fantastic music seems your musical geniuses isnt alone in his sufferings. "My message goes out to all modern artists who find the three and a half minute barrier a challenge: don't consider yourself an artist until you can take up the yoke of a true artist. He had no electronic aids to enhance his works and he wrote all of it, for the strings, brass, percussion and woodwind, without hearing it played on more than a piano in his apartments." I think your looking in the wrong places if you cant find good artists breaking this phantom barrier you talk of, their are many fantastic modern day artists you've just decided you dont want to find them because of your irrational elitism, i can show u many albums released since 1990 which have tracks over this "barrier" then you go on to criticise electronic aids - why? - what is wrong with these, they give more scope for a greater variety of music within which the sound can please everyone not just people with your love of the bare instruments, electronic aids can improve music no end, give variation, sound effects and so on to improve a piece of music and take it away from old, stagnant, stuck in the past music, remember James, Variety is the Spice of Life, and from your article it would seem that your Life doesn't have much Spice if you dont wan't to try new things because of your love for the past, just because you like one thing doesnt mean you have to disappreciate its past, i appreciate modern music had to start somewhere, i just feel it has moved on. As an analogy to this i have played computer games since i owned my Megadrive, i still own it and love it, i still play it regularly, however i also have the latest generation of consoles and have no problem mixing old with new, each has their own benefits, are you scared that if you try other things (and actually want to like them) you might find something new that you like? "So in conclusion, only attack a musical genre when you know you have more firepower than they have" say what? what "firepower" does a genre so outdated have against modern music, a couple of broken violin strings and a rusty harp? I'm pretty usre if Beethoven were alive today he'd be experimenting with all the wonders of modern music, and he'd think of his original symphonies as outdated and worthless compared to the new genius to be concocted with a much larger set of instruments (instruments to incorporate all the possibilites to come from electronic aids and etc) with which to construct his music. "IQ size attack" *yawn* get back under your musical rock and come back out in another 50 years when you've decided you might like to try something else with a view to appreciating it, not immediate dismissal and contempt, you never know what somethings like till you try it (p.s im not in anyway trying to make a personal attack on you harrison so if any of that came across that way that is not how i intended it, aside from my disagreement with the articles sentiment it has its plus points, it is well constructed (if a little lacking on backing up of points), has good flow and grammar and uses a variety of language which keeps you reading.) so theres my little critique
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 17, 2004 2:11:56 GMT
A well balanced article arguing against the points addressed, yet respectful enough to give credit where credit is due (at final paragraph).
I've always been a huge fan of live music and so am not really one for arguing for the use of electronic aids, but admittedly one of my favourite bands, Incubus, mix tracks with a DJ to produce and out-and-out better quality of song. Also, synthesisers and vocal-altering software, when altering the style of voice/instrument (but not the actual note and tone - that's cheating), produce wonderful effects. A song that utilises these techniques is "Intergalactic" by the Beastie Boys, one of my all-time favourite pieces.
You simply can't get certain sounds or vocal styles through natural means; the digital age is upon us - we will have to embrace these new developments in technology to evolve musical tastes. However, I hope that said techniques still leave the focus on the singer, songwriter and musicians: not the methods of "improvement".
|
|
|
Post by GunstarHero on Jan 17, 2004 2:21:10 GMT
As Matty says, Intergalactic by the beastie boys, not possible without electronic aids yet superb, i really feel these aids bring something new to the table rather than detract from quality and that is my point ;D
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Jan 17, 2004 15:34:08 GMT
I agree with the paddy in that classical music is unfairly slated, but where there are sweeping generalisations made against it, there are the same against modern music.
Yes, some classical music is a bit boring; yes, some modern music is a bit boring - it all comes down to personal taste.
I do have to disagree with james about the length of modern music - A Rush of Blood to the Head by Coldplay comprises eleven "movements", if you will; seven of them are over five minutes in length, one's just short of five minutes, and the other three are between 3:30 and 4:00 in length. This, however, is absolutely irrelevant - some of the Beatles' songs, widely regarded as not half bad, are less than three minutes, and are better for it.
A lot of modern music's problem is that it does struggle to break the 3:30 barrier; many songs only have 2:30-worth of song in them, yet they're spun out for an extra, pointless, sixty seconds. If you've run out of words and music, finish the song - please.
While I agree that a lot of modern music is quite bobbins, I think this should be labelled "populist" rather than "popular", the distinction being this: populist music's sole purpose of existence is to be popular, to rake in the wonga; it's churned out at a faster rate than cold hamburgers in a Mickey D's, and spun out to three minutes, in order that it can be placed on a disc and flogged for several quid.
Other, non-populist music can still be popular, even over-popular - for a while there, Clocks was inescapable on British radio (Clocks is 5:07 in length, if it matters). The difference is that this music was created for the sake of creating music, not to sell to the youngest bidder.
This is part of the reason that the singles chart is on its last legs - singles are, generally, made to sell. Couple this with the fact that you can only buy a single once it's been played to death on the radio for a month, and you discover why most singles carry an "only for those with more money than sense" label.
Even if a piece of classical music is ten times the length of a modern piece, and has maybe twenty times the number of notes, this doesn't mean there's any more artistic merit in either - the artist says with the music what the artist wants to say. The only music I object to is that in which the artist has nothing to say and much to gain (not that I'm saying you shouldn't listen to it - it's just crap, that's all).
|
|
|
Post by Tassadara C on Jan 17, 2004 16:43:37 GMT
If you've run out of words and music, finish the song - please. Goes for so much else in the world, too.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 17, 2004 16:53:04 GMT
Too frigging right
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Jan 17, 2004 17:14:57 GMT
And the devil said unto radio 1, "chorus repeat"...
|
|
|
Post by Tassadara C on Jan 17, 2004 19:37:34 GMT
Goes for so much else in the world, too. Continuing that random tangent... Sometimes I just wanna take people by the shoulders, shake them violently, and tell them to just SIT down, SHUT the hell up, you are NOISE POLLUTION and though we realize you love the sound of your own voice, your time would be better spent in the corner masturbating -- it's more productive, and less disturbing to others. *sigh* Everybody always tells me I'm too nice.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 17, 2004 19:50:50 GMT
I felt like that in the last forum I was in...
...in college, however, I think everyone just agrees to shut the hell up now because no-one can be bothered with anything that isn't fun or enjoyable, preferring to sit in silence while I eat my curry jacket potato and Nick listens to his Minidisc player.
Oh, unless Danny goes on about working at Burger King again..
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 17, 2004 20:26:48 GMT
H'evening after sifting through 2 new pages of indignation, tellitubby tour bus porno scripts and burger king i have decided to reply. i never claimed to know everything about ALL music for that would be daft, and before people start citing modern artists who create decent music despite having no hands or no head. i know there are artists out there who do create music that one wouldn't degrade by wiping your arse with the score, if you care to read the article i do take my hat off to modern artists who show talent. and when you say 'nothing new throughout the genre' you have to get away from just the music used in movies, because when a genre covers a couple o centuries theres going to be natural evolution, and composers did follow that natural evolution. 'couple of broken violin strings and a rusty harp' that is EXACTLY the sentiment i wrote this to combat, that is the stereotypical modern music attack, its old, stuffy and should have died with the composers, the intollerance i show towards modern music is mirrored in the intollerance you show towards classical music. Variety is the spice of live, and my life contains plenty of variety, i listen to lots of different music, i dont actively dive out upon hearing one song by a band or artist and snap up all albums by them but i vote with my feet, if i dont like it i switch it off, but to say its old and shows no difference between pieces is daft, it is in my opinion the only genre (because of its massive diversity) that can express all emotions and can tell a story. i'm rather irritated by the point 'its all the same' it shows the size of the tar brush you're wielding considering there are pieces written for all different instruments, religious purposes, opera, celebration, dancing, mourning. i cant think of a modern genre that covers all those. despite my musical rock being terribly comfortable i do get out from under it if only to make sure i dont end up with a crooked back and i do listen to other music, and as i said earlier if i think its shite its switched off, but i do give it a fair crack of the whip before i kill it. Electronic aids. can i ask what is wrong with the noise produced by a human voice or instrument held by a person? electronic aids are used far to often to improve a voice or tinker with the sounds produced, why?! if you cant sing dont and if you cant manage to play the music as written and need someone to touch it up DON'T. it is that which degrades the true talent out there, and if this is the opinion of someone like me who looks in on it all then it goes to show how polluted the modern music gene pool is by this crap that it is obscuring from me the good music, why dont you run it through a sewage plant and sift out the bodily waste that pollutes the pool and then allow me to see with some clarity what i am missing.
|
|
|
Post by GunstarHero on Jan 18, 2004 1:09:58 GMT
i never claimed to know everything about ALL music i dont think anyone ever said you did, just that you came across a little over-biased towards one genre and u came across as bashing the more popular genres because modern culture is less accepting of classical music and you somehow hold classical music's lack of appreciation against modern music for replacing it I have heard quite a bit of classical music and not just in the movies, but this natural evolution you talk of, its a very slow progression when nothing new has been brought to the table and you've had the same implements with which to create music for 2 centuries without anything new stirring things up a bit. I wrote the couple of broken violin strings/rusty harp thing just to show how silly ur beethoven kills madonna with a violin patter was, it wasnt meant seriously, although maybe i should have made that clear. I can appreciate these people were talented, playing and writing on their own.I just feel things have moved on to a better age, now we play football with a leather ball, not a bag of rags, that type of progression, where although the past has a romantic side to it, only nostalgia makes you think it could be better than in modern times, the rose tinted glasses often obscure the truth. I'm not intollerant of classical music it merely holds no magic for my ears, although u may have got this from misconstruing my point about the broken violin strings/rusty harp which as ive alredy said is probably my fault. that is fair enough but ur article came across as a lot less accepting than that this diversity i honestly do not see, u can only play the limited number of instruments you have back then, without electronic modifications, synthesisers, amplifiers and etc in so many ways, im not tarring with a large brush it does all sound the same to me because its coming from a very limited background of possibilities as opposed to todays endless variety across a multitude of genres, maybe its cos classical music does nothing for me but unless the piece is put at the right point in a movie i find that played on its own they all sound pretty much the same, whatever their purpose, they sound, for want of a better term, old, sort of like worn out and should be put down, out of their misery. Maybe to get the variety in something you need to love it, indeed ive been criticised by friends that an album of one of my favoured bands "all sounds the same" to me this is a complete non-truth as when you get into their music its nuances are something that is great about it, so maybe this could be the problem with it all sounding the same to me. Their is nothing wrong with the sound produced by a human voice, but by the same token what is wrong with an electronically modified voice if it fits in with the song, listen to beastie boys "intergalactic" and tell me how it could be done without electronic aids, electronic aids do further music by providing more options to artists to go they want to go with their music and not be limited to the human voice and a small number of instruments. True talent as you define it isnt necessarily right, if a band can produce a song and then get a synth man to modify it into a great tune by tweaking it here and their is their anything wrong with that? This just shows a synth man with true talent a man who knows what to do with the tools of his trade. If someone can't sing then people will find out from their live performances, i have singers and bands i like that i am told are shit live, but that makes no difference to their cd music, you can enjoy it as is, music comes from a team, a synth man is part of this team now, its part of the progression of music. But if you want to listen to the true talents of voice and playing go to a live concert, dont sit their proclaiming how good it used to be cos it doesnt matter how long u keep proclaiming, it aint never coming back ! (p.s synth man is a term i made up to cover people who do te modifications to songs, i dont know the technical term for it) the modern musical gene pool is not polluted, your rose tinted glasses merely make it so, the good music is their, you merely dont want to find it because of your love for classical music anyway i am enjoying this thread and hope it can continue in this form, serious discussion without it getting personal, i look forward to your replies james !
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 18, 2004 1:20:36 GMT
Lovely response, one particularly echoing my feelings on the subject of electronic aids. I'm also for the natural progression thing too, but not in the sense that older forms of music simply go out of existence; I love classical music but I enjoy it in a medium with other musics I love, such as the polarized metal, rock, dance, funk, etc... Nice conclusive "rose tinted spectacles" quote - something I look forward to being challenged. I see this argument continuing for a long time, as I'm sure James has something up his sleeve
|
|
|
Post by GunstarHero on Jan 18, 2004 1:23:09 GMT
well ive seen your mums wizard's sleeve j/k
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 18, 2004 1:27:46 GMT
Cheeky bastard I reckon Harrison's got some ground to make up - no-one's fully agreed with him yet, so he's in for a battle or some form of agreeing where he's wrong. ...but this is Harrison! That's not going to happen! ;D
|
|
|
Post by GunstarHero on Jan 18, 2004 1:29:22 GMT
yes theres more likelihood of him getting rid of that sideparting [j/k]
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Jan 18, 2004 2:27:46 GMT
I think the fact that there are limitations, inherent in the raw human voice, makes it more interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if a machine could reproduce a sound perfectly, but a human doing so would be pretty impressive - look at that bloke off Police Academy!
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 18, 2004 2:48:16 GMT
Easily the best character next to High Tower and the black woman who had a really soft voice but used to proper lose her rag
|
|
|
Post by BoneyRoney on Jan 18, 2004 14:07:25 GMT
The bloke off Police Academy I believe was called Jones. And Police Academy are some of the best movies ever, I've taped a couple of them. Police Academy r0x0r ur s0x0r
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Jan 18, 2004 16:19:26 GMT
Yay literacy!
|
|
|
Post by Tassadara C on Jan 18, 2004 16:51:22 GMT
I just wish it was contagious. That and logic. And anti-stupidity. *sigh* There should be a meme for making people not suck.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 18, 2004 16:59:29 GMT
I'm not too sure... it's always nice winning things by default when those around you are nads at everything (y)
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 18, 2004 18:18:58 GMT
1. the side parting stays. 2. my sleeves are terribly full of ideas, most not very good but then theres bound to be at least one good one. i expected there to be no real support for my article because its a complete opposite to the accepted argument. In response to you're post senor Belly i shall start at the very beginning, a very good place to start (damn you julie andrews and your contagious singing about annoying places to begin something ) i made the comment about not knowing all music because different people in this thread have thrown at me the "if you'd actually listened to.......<insert 100 million different bands or artists> you'd know more" argument. i dont feel hatred towards modern music because its replaced classical music, i mentioned natural evolution through classical music, and without this evolution you wouldn't have modern music and we'd still be sitting in trees slinging poo at each other, i just believe that all arguments thrown up as anti classical music are testiculous. Classical music does all sound different, there are accepted rules to music and that explains the slow evolution but those rules were bent almost to breaking in places. I use Beethovens 3rd symphony, probably because its my favourite, that was completely new, it smashed all previously held ideas about music, some people ignored him but some listened. The Firebird sounds nothing like Peer Gynt Suite. there is massive variation, you just have to jump the rails and go on a new path through the woods, the old ones getting worn. i cant comment on how much classical music you have heard but all i can say is the stuff smattered about is over played and becomes annoying, and the rip offs done for adverts do it no credit <insert carefully chosen insult of the Bernard Matthews advert using badly mushed "Libiamo ne'lieti Calici" with the product name in there repeated over and over>. you do play football with a "magical superdooper space age ball" but you also pay players hundreds of thousands of pounds for a couple of hours "work" a week, Stanley Matthews played for peanuts, he didn't play because he'd be rich from it he played for the love of the sport. it proves all evolution is not always good. My article came across less accepting because i wrote it in the style of the arguments thrown up in the face of classical music. and what is used in movies is a convienient chunk of the piece, for instance you all know that violin bit they use when 2 lovers run to each other in slow motion (stereotypical scene i know) that is a tiny bit of a much larger tapestry. you cant see the whole picture by standing with your nose on the canvas. my attack on electronic aids is primarily against the use to enhance something that otherwise would be understood to be a cow having its legs sawn off with a plastic spork, to produce music, vocally or instrumentally using electronic aids you must first show an aptitude for the basics in my opinion, you dont go giving a computer programmer the job of interfacing an international network without first getting him to link 2 together do you? My view that the modern musical pool is polluted is valid when such effluence as Girls Aloud, Will "my underbites like a digger scoop" Young and One True Voice (really where?). granted they are extreme examples but less vomity ones do exist, i dont see how you can say "just cos they sound rubbish live doesn't detract from the musical value of their CDs" of course it does, why cant they provide the same quality in CD as they do live, and that shows me music is not a "team" effort, because no team leans on one member (the synth man) like a crutch to make their music marketable, thats not fair. its like a general saying "wars a team effort.....say jimmy you go take that machine gun nest, we'll be along after this game of cards". the synth man has to be a very talented person with their equipment because he has less and less to work with as people rely on him more and more. the bread and butter of music now is no longer musical talent but a face you can put on a CD cover, that is wrong, the reliance on electronic aids is steadily removing actual musical talent from the equation, and i personally will mourn the day it actually dies and all music is created by a machine because it wont have a single human touch in it, which i believe is half the enjoyment, you look at art and think "its beautiful to think someone can stand there and create that" but if it was done by a computer "its a marvel of technology" but there can be no admiration because how can you admire an inanimate object, you dont admire the plant pot for holding the soil that sustains the plant, you admire the gardner who cultivates it. i didn't say there wasn't good music out there and i do look for it, i am told that "this bands good" or "this songs good" and i will look for it, listen to it and make a decision. And as a classical music listener i am forced to dig for music because you tell me how many shops provide a decent selection of classical CDs in this town so i am not afraid of getting my hands (metaphorically) dirty in the search for music. P.S. i knew in writing this i'd get under many peoples skins simply because of the topic, so please do keep foaming at the mouth and ranting back because i do so love reading your rants and replying and making you all foam at the mouth all the more.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 18, 2004 18:37:53 GMT
Although it could be said that I've leant more on Jon in this argument, I must admit I do agree with James for much of this one.
The metaphor "that is a tiny bit of a much larger tapestry. you cant see the whole picture by standing with your nose on the canvas." is one I'll very much agree with; narrow-minded views can go both ways; classical music extends for one hell of a long time period and not the last, say, 40 years like modern trends have.
To disregard classical music is even worse than to disregard modern music; the sheer vast amount of good classical music probably matches, if not tops, that of modern music. This isn't from personal tastes, but the quality is more consistant.
As for electronic aids, well; I'm in between. I hate the idea that artists like Westlife, etc, use electronic software to change the pitch and tone of their voices, whilst not playing any instruments, which are, in themselves, remixed tenfold before played over the back.
THIS is the reason people mime: they cannot rely on their own voice.
Simple insecurity.
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Jan 18, 2004 19:44:56 GMT
the bread and butter of music now is no longer musical talent but a face you can put on a CD cover, that is wrong, the reliance on electronic aids is steadily removing actual musical talent from the equation, and i personally will mourn the day it actually dies and all music is created by a machine because it wont have a single human touch in it, which i believe is half the enjoyment, you look at art and think "its beautiful to think someone can stand there and create that" but if it was done by a computer "its a marvel of technology" but there can be no admiration because how can you admire an inanimate object, you dont admire the plant pot for holding the soil that sustains the plant, you admire the gardner who cultivates it. amen. What we hear today, yes. But perhaps this is because all of the rubbish has been filtered out by time? For example, I suppose we know more good songs from the '60s and '70s than awful ones, as the awful ones have been (rightly) forgotten; whereas the majority of contemporary music is shite - because you hear the crap songs too.
|
|
|
Post by Tassadara C on Jan 18, 2004 20:06:08 GMT
What we hear today, yes. But perhaps this is because all of the rubbish has been filtered out by time? For example, I suppose we know more good songs from the '60s and '70s than awful ones, as the awful ones have been (rightly) forgotten; whereas the majority of contemporary music is shoite - because you hear the crap songs too. VERY good point -- there were hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of composers, but there's only (comparitivly) a handful who's work has survived to so lauded in the present day.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 18, 2004 20:14:13 GMT
VERY good point -- there were hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of composers, but there's only (comparitivly) a handful who's work has survived to so lauded in the present day. I'll see you there, but I'm sure that in this century you find that if a band has a hit, the rest of their songs will be ranted and raved about as if they're good too; also, don't you think that songs SHOULD be still pretty good with the digital technology that comes with?
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Jan 18, 2004 20:28:56 GMT
Actually, we're neglecting to mention contemporary classical music (no, it's not an oxymoron) - I can't recall any classical music, from the last century or before, that's as genuinely offensive as, say, Steps.
|
|
|
Post by Tassadara C on Jan 18, 2004 20:33:22 GMT
I'll see you there, but I'm sure that in this century you find that if a band has a hit, the rest of their songs will be ranted and raved about as if they're good too only by people who's opinions I wouldn't listen to anyway, so it's a moot point to me technology can do wonders, but it is no substitute for creativity or genius. A crappy violinist sounds like crap whether he's given a plywood instrument, or one worth $50000.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 18, 2004 20:38:09 GMT
Actually, we're neglecting to mention contemporary classical music (no, it's not an oxymoron) - I can't recall any classical music, from the last century or before, that's as genuinely offensive as, say, Steps. Or Westlife. Or Hanson. Or anyone else who do covers of old songs and then rake it in. Like when people were saying Westlife were as good as the Beatles because they had consecutive number ones, even though the commercial structure's changed. The Beatles actually sang and played their own instruments, and were damn sexy in general to get crowd cheers from the beginning, not just when they stood up for the final repeated chorus. "OMFG! KIAN STOOD UP!!!1!11!11! MY LIFE IS COMPLETE!"
|
|
|
Post by Tassadara C on Jan 18, 2004 20:42:07 GMT
Haha, took my cousin like a week to convince me they weren't all girls; she finally showed me pictures, but I was still pretty iffy on the subject. But not quite as iffy as they are. I'll let someone else post the 1337-online reference for this one
|
|