knorke wrote:
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.
knorke wrote:
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)
knorke wrote: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.
knorke wrote: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?
