Some finnish music - Amorphis

[Wombat]

i miss old nightwhish, that was good shit

[Gota]

Oh come on...there is so much shit metal and i agree with forb that it probably has zero connection to nationality.
There are talented and original people everywhere.
What might be happening is the fact some genres of music are more accepted into the mainstream in different counties,allowing more bands of a certain style to get recognition which motivates others to create music based on them,thus pushing creativity forward in a certain direction.

[Spawn_Retard]

swedish metal ftw.

[Coresair]

eww.

The closest thing to Swedish metal i have ever liked it finntroll. Although they are Finnish, they sing in Swedish.

[JohannesH]

Sweden is a really good heavy metal country actually. Heavy Load, Axe Witch, Portrait, Stillborn, Entombed, Count Raven, Candlemass, Ram, Griftegård, Gotham City, Bathory etc etc.

[Wombat]

Sweden is a really good heavy metal country actually. Heavy Load, Axe Witch, Portrait, Stillborn, Entombed, Count Raven, Candlemass, Ram, Griftegård, Gotham City, Bathory etc etc.

what is this ? In Flames, Soilwork, Marduk, Dark Tranquillity, Hammerfall, Therion, Opeth - how could u not mention any of these lol

[Neddie]

Because some of them, at least, are rubbish. I mean, in my opinion. Hammerfall makes me laugh and In Flames is just... banal.

[Wombat]

yes ofc, currently most popular swedish metal bands are crap and banal

[Neddie]

Because popularity makes something good? I simply feel that In Flames retreads already worn musical ground without creating anything stimulating, and Hammerfall grasps for grandeur but instead comes off as rather pitiable between mediocre lyrics, uninspired instrumentation, retreaded themes, and self-importance conveyed in all too many hokey music videos. Not to say I don't enjoy either in some situations - Last Man Standing is a good song to wake up to, for instance.

[Wombat]

yes, indeed albums sold are worse indicator than 'neddie thinks'. also in flames play totally different music since 2 last albums, so no.

[Neddie]

You could just say you disagree with me and maybe offer some justification instead of returning to the popularity point. If amount sold was a good indicator of quality, we would all be playing Solitaire on Windows, listening to Thriller and the Phantom Of The Opera, reading Twilight and Harry Potter.

Also, ABBA and Ace Of Base, if you're thinking Sweden.

[Peet]

>implying the phantom of the opera is not a quality production

[SirArtturi]

Pretty good, they've definitely god some pretty awesome talent. Unfortunately imo, their music is pretty forgettable, in the fact that there isn't much catchyness to it; nothing that really makes me want to listen to them over and over again. Sampo is really pretty, but other than that there isn't much to it. My favorite part of the song was actually the bridge in the middle of it, nothing particularly special, but it did stick out.

As you said "Imo" I'd like to emphasize that aspect a little more. I dont know what is your idea of cathyness. Don't know actually what is peoples idea of catchyness in common either. If It's Lady Gaga, then I cant buy it completely, and if it would be, it would be a pretty bad thing.
How I personally see it, catchyness should build up primary from the musical "excellence" and techinical perspective. In other words, from rhytmn, melody, harmony, structure etc... After that aspect, the listeners personal emotion comes in picture. So to say, what kind of personal and cultural affection he can conjoin to the musical piece.

Therefore, I dare to claim that this, and amorphis songs at large are quite catchy. This is because I see this music really succeeds from techincal point of view. It has great melodies, awesome guitar riffs, its harmonic, etc... Unlike many other grawling mishmash metal.

Thus we get to the other topic - that may seem a bit elitist and maybe pointless for someone - which is the idea of good music and musical taste overall. I think it's wrong to protest that every taste is a good taste, relatively. If we take the first point aforementioned, there really is "better" music - and of course everyone has to admit this. Thats why some people simply has bad taste of music...

The only problem is to judge reasonably what is good music...

It is argued, that classical music is best music on earth. Of course you can say, that this is because it is "old" but one must realize also, that this music has lasted for time because it is simply, absolutely excellent. Time preliminates away the bad shit that is only catchy in personal point of views.

Ouch, Why I started this debate. It's so complicated. Maybe you can help me out. Or you can disprove my point, but you need to argument it good...

Edit: I kinda lost the main argument here. Maybe it was that "Amorphis must be great music, because it has harmony, melody etc. and therefore Forboding must be wrong and have a bad taste of music."
Lol, Okay forget about that, Im not trying to argue that you have a bad taste of music, but rather try to provoke to discussion of how people think about good music and can that be argued?

[Beherith]

Which brings me to exhibit B; why my name is what it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrBDJf62eto (I can hardly believe I found it on youtube, its old shit)

[SirArtturi]

Ok, going back to Lady Gaga and why that kind of shit is popular. Well its mainly just because it's POP-music, for popularity. Since when popularity knew what is good?
Ok that was a bit sarcastic, but only like 50%
Really, popularity can be so easily deceived. Mass culture(popular culture so to say) is incredibly powerful entity which is like blind and numb gorge that eats every shit that gets on its way, turns it into a big shapeless mess, and poops it out covering everything around it and leaving so bad destruction behind that anything can't recover from it.

Why popular culture in common disrespects classic/art music? It is because that is part of its identity and history. Popular music was basically music for commoners, who didnt have accees nor wealth to listen the music of that time. The classical music was for elite. Elite however had chance to pick up only the best. Shit was left for commoners.

Nowadays music has no class-boundaries. It can be seen as good thing, but It has bad sides too. Now its hard to discriminate the good the things among the crap and there is no powerful institution/organ to do this task. It's the majortiy that is ruling. Popularity is writing its own history... Democracy of music? What do you think?

Ok, even though Im classical music enthusiast,this is not supposed to be only just rhapsody for it but to point out that there is really better music out there, in every fields...

[Panda]

>implying the phantom of the opera is not a quality production

I love Phantom of the Opera. It's one of my favorite musical productions.

[knorke]

[...]rhytmn, melody, harmony, structure etc... After that aspect, the listeners personal emotion comes in picture.

For me it is completly the other way around.
I do not really care how good the musicians are, if the singer hits every note or none. As long as it sounds good to me, I will listen to it.
The feeling, athmosphere is more important to me.
Blues, Rock, Metal - there have been quite a few influential artists with little "technical skill."

the classical music was for elite.

Yes, and I think it shows. In a bad way.
I am always reminded that Ludwig XIV (the french "sun king") and other people who want to be as cool as him, listend to that music. In big ass-castles. That raises the question, was that music just popular because it was monumental and representative?
Compare to the castles and large gardens of that time.

My musical problem with classic is, it either sounds
a) totally epic, like the music for a film trailer. Stuff like Wagners "Ride of the Valkyries"
gets boring after a while imo.
Also its so bombastic, it totally misses any feeling.
or
b) its a nice, catchy melodie. While that it is nice, there is not much substance to it. Good to listen to in the background - but what else?
The Tetris melody can compare with Beethoven's "F├╝r Elise"
Yes, I am serious, which song is better?

I am aware that these songs are kind of "mainstream classic music" so maybe you can give some good examples to listen to?

but one must realize also, that this music has lasted for time because it is simply, absolutely excellent. Time preliminates away the bad shit that is only catchy in personal point of views.

No. Imo that has more to do with politics at the time.
Popularity has little to do with quality.
You even say so yourself in your 2nd posting: Since when popularity knew what is good?
Many good music gets lost, from tribal chantings to 80s thrash metal bands that never got out of Metallics shadows.

Nowadays music has no class-boundaries.

Wrong. Just look at classic concert ticket prices, high prices are only natural when you have to pay a whole orchestra but it is a barrier.

Now its hard to discriminate the good the things among the crap and there is no powerful institution/organ to do this task

Thank god there is no institution to decide what is good music
Finding good music is easier than ever with internet.

The classical music was for elite. Elite however had chance to pick up only the best. Shit was left for commoners.

What do you mean by classical music? Because afaik, for example opera basically was popular music at first. It was seen as entertaimnent for the commoners.

[JohannesH]

I agree wombat, those bands you listed are crap and banal

Though first Therion records are pretty cool.

[SirArtturi]

For me it is completly the other way around.
I do not really care how good the musicians are, if the singer hits every note or none. As long as it sounds good to me, I will listen to it.
The feeling, athmosphere is more important to me.
Blues, Rock, Metal - there have been quite a few influential artists with little "technical skill."

I think you are missing the point a bit. Although, Undoubtly I think that badly and wrong played song will really let you down, it is not only how the musical piece is played but, moreover, how it is structured. Ofc Hendrix was not actually very good player and definitely not a composer, but he was a musical genious and knew how construct a musical masterpiece.

My musical problem with classic is, it either sounds
a) totally epic, like the music for a film trailer. Stuff like Wagners "Ride of the Valkyries"
gets boring after a while imo.
Also its so bombastic, it totally misses any feeling.
or
b) its a nice, catchy melodie. While that it is nice, there is not much substance to it. Good to listen to in the background - but what else?
The Tetris melody can compare with Beethoven's "F├╝r Elise"
Yes, I am serious, which song is better?

I am aware that these songs are kind of "mainstream classic music" so maybe you can give some good examples to listen to?

Well, they are kinda mainstream, but I see that you are quite right what you are saying, at least for your part and indeed it has to be mainstream since we are speaking about popularity and classics.

However, It seems that you are putting too much attention on how the composition is performed and not to the composition itself. As you may know, symphonies are not only form of performation/interpretation and symphonies have that tendency of being bombastic. "Classical" music at large can vary drastically from minimalism to the epic
"bombastment." As also, afaik, classical music is the most versatile form of music at least what comes to the scale of pitch and tone (If i got it correct since I am not a musician or music theorist)

What comes to your mentioned popularity/monumentality concept and in same time for your request of example, could be my all time favourite Franz Schubert, who was in his living time quite unpopular and lived in poverty despite the fact that after his dead, this musical mastermind was "resurrected" and Is now one of the most respected artists of western world.

He was also very versatile and made a lot different kind of music from symphonies(Symphony N. to lieds and instrumental solo. (Arpeggione Sonata - which basically a old form of guitar)

Wrong. Just look at classic concert ticket prices, high prices are only natural when you have to pay a whole orchestra but it is a barrier.

_classic_ concert... Umm... not only classic concerts are expensive, but all these big pop celebrities are pulling off quite high prices too. I really cant see the distinction. As this argument is not relevant since records are still sold averagely same price and as you said, interent and spotify has come to us. Imo that is pretty boundarybreaking.

What do you mean by classical music? Because afaik, for example opera basically was popular music at first. It was seen as entertaimnent for the commoners.

Now this is Imo the big question which you were able to point out successfully. I kinda rushed with my theory stating that classical music is somekinda thing that is filtered through some elitist institution like aristrocratics and burgess. Well it is partly, but that is just a one side of it. Basically most of the now so called classic music is just history pop music. Maybe classical is not even right word to describe the music and that is part reason why some people are calling it "Art music." Maybe it has too much assosiation to the one historic period which baroque - Bach and Beethoven. In reality it has much older roots and imo romantic era music is much more compelling to me.

On what I liked to pay attention, is the word "classic" actually. The "semiotic" of the word may describe it best. "Classic" is something that has been able to last and prolongue throughout time and has freezed itself, it has gotten a static form for itself. Its authentic and recognized.

So, how something can become a classic? I argue, that something most likely must be documented, or written and that means basically staff notations in terms of music. I hardly see folk songs as classical music because they remain and are prolongued only by oral tradition and memory. That means they are in constant change. The structure of musical piece is not static, it evolves constantly. Modern technology however has changed this drastically. Now every song can be a classic basically whether it is "technically" seen good or bad. It is just a matter how the music is seen at large. What kinda cultural values we put into it, what we hear as beautiful and interesting etc.

So that is kinda dead end for that definition aswell. As also, along these lines, some may argue also that thriller is a classical music, because its a classic, and most certainly will last throughout times. So, what is left?
I'd like to stick with definition classical = good music :) This however would arise against me because I think that Lady Gaga may be the next classic...

So, can the classic be just absolute crap?

[JohannesH]

Classical music is a genre of music, certain instruments and composition styles, it doesnt have to do anything with the word "classic" necessarily