Post: #26

(01-08-2013 04:59 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  If you don't have time to care about the greatest things humans have produced, what do you have time for?

Just so you know, here are some the classical artists I have seen in person:

Maurizio Pollini
Daniel Barenboim
Yo Yo Ma
Midori
Anne Sophie Mutter
Evgeny Kissin
Murray Perahia
Itzak Perlman

Here are some of the orchestras I have seen in person

Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York, Cleveland.

I own about 100 classical CDs.

Then again, I am old white fart and have been around for a while.

Frankly, when I go to a classical concert, I don't WANT the Katy Perry fans there. They know shit. I am not interested in educating them, or wanting them to somehow get some deep understanding of what is happening in Mahler's 9th or Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto. I simply don't care if they have no idea who Sibelius or Chopin is.

Neither should you.

If someone goes to a concert because, well, it's something monied white folks do, I say, fan-fucking-tastic. Let them spend their money there. As long as they don't applaud between movements, I could care less.

Neither should you.

Post: #27

(01-08-2013 06:43 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Dude, it's classical music. Who really gives a fuck?
That's the part of this story no one ever seems to bring up. If he was a world class musician playing pop, playing music that people liked, then his case would be full of money.

But he's not. He's playing music that largely fell out of favor 70 years ago. It's so not popular that the state has to use my tax dollars to indoctrinate children in something few people care about.

WIA

Problem is that the vast majority of pop music that could draw a crowd is not even performable in a subway like this. You would have to transform the subway into a performance venue with a sound system and pyrotechnics and dancers and such. If you put Vanessa Mae in full costume with her electric violin she'd have probably drawn a crowd performing the exact same classical pieces.

In addition to spectacle, pop music is about the performer's attitude, personality, and image as well as lyrics and sound. Even if say, Pitbull were to disguise himself and go try and sing in a subway with a small, portable sound system, when you walked by you'd be like, 'hey that guy sounds just like Pitbull.' Even if you didn't recognize the song or his face. And of course, lots of people would recognize the song and the face.

You'd have to be beyond expert to recognize a particular violinists style in a setting like that. I love classical music and I'd never heard of Joshua Bell until this story broke a few years ago, because although Bell is elite there are quality violinists all over the world. There are probably thousands of high-quality performances of this piece every single year. Those performances might range in quality from 75-95, where Bell is consistently a 99 and that's why he gets paid a lot to perform in the big venues. Meanwhile there's only one Pitbull and any attempt by anyone else to perform his music is immediately recognized as a cover can't even be graded on the same scale.

And, frankly, I don't listen to classical music for the solo, unaccompanied violin. I'll listen to pieces like that once or twice and then stick to the far more interesting polyphonic stuff.

Post: #28

(01-08-2013 06:29 PM)Caligula Wrote:  thedude, do you have any recommendations for getting into classical music? I've listened to it a lot but sense that something is missing, I don't understand it very well. Any resources or books?

That recommendation for Music Appreciation is good. You'll notice most people in the class are just doing it for the college credits. Let the teacher know you're genuinely interested in learning about music and they will be ELATED.

I started out in classical guitar when I was 11. I didn't know shit about classical music but I was exposed to it through my parents. I couldn't tell you the difference between any composers and I didn't have a lot of interest in it.

I can't tell you why it "clicked", but one day I was listening to the 1st Chopin piano concerto. Hell, most composers consider it very poorly orchestrated, but some of the themes are haunting. Anyway, it stuck like a mofo. So I got into Chopin and spent countless hours listening to every Prelude, Etude, Nocturne, Mazurkas, Polonaises, Rondos, Scherzos, EVERYTHING. Couldn't get enough.

Chopin is Romantic, so I started checking out other Romantics. Still not a big fan of Schumann, but I like Schubert, Brahms, Mendelssohn.

At some point I discovered Beethoven and that was life changing. Beethoven is a giant. They're considered trite and overplayed, but start with his 3rd, 5th, and 7th symphonies. Check out his piano sonatas ( Moonlight Sonata, Pathetique, Pastoral, Tempest) These are the best known pieces and a great starting point. His string quartets are also very good.

Bach is a whole other species. Bach composed for churches and, while I'm not a religious man, I consider his music straight from God. Check out the Brandenburg concertos, the Well tempered clavier, the violin and cellos sonatas and partidas, and if you have some serious time to devote, listen to the Goldberg variations as much as you can.

This is a very basic start. There is a goddamn treasure bank of classical music that I'm sure either myself or Tenderman could wax ecstatic on. I can't imagine going a lifetime without listening to Tchaikovsky's violin concerto or his 6th symphony. Mendelssohns octet and violin concerto. Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Mahler, Stravinsky, Mozart, Vivaldi, Scarlatti...

When you're listening to this stuff, listen with INTENTION. Most people listen to classical music as background; I've never understood this. Listen to the music the way you'd listen to your grandparents tell a story. Notice the details and background notes. Classical music requires an attention span, but like an old muscle that gets some long-needed exercise, it feels amazing when you use it. Some pieces are challenging to listen to (Bach's goldberg variations) but when you start to get to "know" a piece after the 3rd or 4th time listening to it, certain themes pop out at you and it's this long process of peeling back the layers; every time you'll hear something new. No other music on earth provides this experience.

Post: #29

(01-09-2013 12:38 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  As long as they don't applaud between movements, I could care less.

Neither should you.

I genuinely lolled at this.

I don't understand your attitude of, "You shouldn't care". What, I shouldn't get fired up about things that matter to me? In my experience, if you can't find things in this world to genuinely hate, you'll never find something you genuinely love.

Post: #30

Seingalt and thedude, thanks a lot for your pointers! Getting a copy of the Enjoyment of Music and will go from there.

Post: #31

For some reason I tend to find Baroque era classical to be boring. I can appreciate it for what it is, but it's not something I care that much to listen to. It's like it doesn't fit into my life or lifestyle and I can't see envision any time that I actually feel like listening to it. I like modern classical much, much better. Like Debussy, Stravinsky or Ravel. That era of classical moves me much more.

For once I actual agree with Tenderman. I don't know exactly what people were expecting. I mean who the hell is going to know how much his violin cost? Most people aren't raised on classical and that guy isn't exactly a household name. One man's art is another man's bore. I do find something inherently arrogant about expecting everyone to recognize certain classical pieces. There are many types of great music. If I put on a Miles Davis piece 99% of people probably won't recognize that either. Not everyone is that heavily into music. For most it's just something to dance to or fill up silence. I find that a minority of people are active listeners and actively seek out music that is compositionally complex. Is this a new development? Probably not. I'm sure a few hundred years ago, average working philistines had their more accessible folk music to keep them satisfied.

A girl I recently met suggested going to an opera some time. I've always found opera to extremely boring. I know it's quality music, but it does nothing for me. I'll probably go at some point because I love music and I'm open-minded person. But not all types of music(even good) are going to appeal to everyone. And that's fine.

Post: #32

Only in America...

Doesn't take a classical music fan to recognise the guy is very good.

Post: #33

A few more people pay attention to street classical music in Barcelona:



Edit: My bad, Sabadell is just outside Barcelona.

Post: #34

(01-09-2013 02:34 PM)Soma Wrote:  A few more people pay attention to street classical music in Barcelona:

Forgot NYC?

Post: #35

Clearly you didn't read your own link. A disguised Paul McCartney ends up entertaining a bunch of ppl who DIDN'T recognize him. Article goes on about dancing punks and drunk scotsman.

In Josh's case, he didn't entertain anyone. Why? He's playing classical.
I understand that people think the skill and majesty of the music SHOULD be appreciated, but in the real world it is not. (And arguably, it has never been)

Y'all need a red pill for culture.

WIA

(01-08-2013 06:50 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(01-08-2013 06:43 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Dude, it's classical music. Who really gives a fuck?
That's the part of this story no one ever seems to bring up. If he was a world class musician playing pop, playing music that people liked, then his case would be full of money.

But he's not. He's playing music that largely fell out of favor 70 years ago. It's so not popular that the state has to use my tax dollars to indoctrinate children in something few people care about.

WIA

What about Sir Paul McCartney, you know someone who was a former Beatle, and is one of the most successful and popular artist in history? And he was playing his song Yesterday and still played the guitar as a leftie, yet only a drunk person recognized him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21...15119.html

Post: #36

(01-09-2013 01:01 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  When you're listening to this stuff, listen with INTENTION. Most people listen to classical music as background; I've never understood this. Listen to the music the way you'd listen to your grandparents tell a story. Notice the details and background notes. Classical music requires an attention span, but like an old muscle that gets some long-needed exercise, it feels amazing when you use it.

For this reason it can be very enlightening to study the classical music forms and basic music theory principles. Although being preoccupied with identifying forms and theoretical features will probably harm enjoyment for most people, a basic understanding of the concepts of harmonic progression, phrasing, key relationships, thematic variation and maybe polyphony can go a long way to helping someone understand the point of classical music.

The basic idea of classical music is that you start with a stable chord and key. You introduce motion conflict by adding dissonance, scales, chords, and sequences that create an expectation of a particular resolution. Much like an author or playwright, the great composers excel at delaying the resolution in creative and interesting ways.

Some classical music uses standard progressions that introduce and resolve conflict in predictable ways and then ornament those progressions. National Anthems and similar hymns typically use standard classical progressions. Many of these progressions are still being used in modern pop music.

So classical music is grouped into "phrases" and themes that explore different ways of establishing and resolving conflict. There are too many different concepts to cover here, but it should be enough to know that they're there.

Also, classical music is much more focused on thematic variation and polyphony than modern music. Modern music innovates with new sounds, technology, dance-oriented beats and rhythms, lyrics, and unique performances from rare individual talents. Classical music is much more about presenting a single musical idea and then showing all the different music that can be derived from that original idea. The 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony (the 'Ode to Joy') is a classic example of thematic variation. I often use Mozart's variations on "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" since it's a melody that many already know.

Polyphony is about multiple independent 'voices' being played simultaneously. While modern music does often "harmonize," classical music is much more thorough about this. The harmonizing you hear in a song like LMFAO's "Party Rock Anthem" (eg on the words "...house tonight") is more about background music to the lyrics than polyphony. Polyphony would be more like what you hear in the chorus of Akon's song Lonely. One voice is the sampled "Mr. Lonely" and Akon sings a simple counterpoint to that original melody.

Anyway, that could be a start on appreciating classical music beyond merely being impressed by the skill of a particular performer. Anyway I realized I did not link any actual classical performances above so here is one: Beethoven 'Waldstein' Piano Sonata

Post: #37

(01-09-2013 02:50 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  In Josh's case, he didn't entertain anyone. Why? He's playing classical.

It's not just that he's playing classical, but baroque solo violin music, without any further effort at presentation. Soma's link is different in a few key ways.

1. The initial performers are dressed up.
2. There are multiple performers, the whole thing is designed as an impromptu performance.
3. They're playing Ode to Joy, not an austere baroque violin solo.
4. It's painfully obvious that the initial shots are a setup, the little girl standing there was placed and the shots designed for already placed cameras.
5. It looks like many of the bystanders were engaged in leisure activity, not on their way to work.

Post: #38

Quote:I understand that people think the skill and majesty of the music SHOULD be appreciated, but in the real world it is not. (And arguably, it has never been)

Y'all need a red pill for culture.

The music Bell played probably wasn't majestic. The main problem with people slamming classical music without knowing what they are talking about is that there is really too much of it to fit into a one category.

As for skill being appreciated-- there's always going to be a question of how much people appreciate raw skill, no matter how rare, at 8:30 in the morning in the middle of their work commute. I agree with Tenderman, the results of this experiment were hardly a surprise and don't tell us anything about the anything, including the appreciation of those people for classical music.

Post: #39

(01-08-2013 07:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is the problem of living in a democracy.

In a democracy, anything that rises above the masses are hated or ignored. Excellence is seen as a vice while mediocrity is a virtue. In a democratic culture, the goal is to be like everyone else.

Let's face it guys, a democracy is really a shitty place to be if you're a superior man.

That is actually pretty profound. I'm gonna use that one if that's alright?!

Post: #40

(01-09-2013 03:30 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:I understand that people think the skill and majesty of the music SHOULD be appreciated, but in the real world it is not. (And arguably, it has never been)

Y'all need a red pill for culture.

The music Bell played probably wasn't majestic.

By this statement alone I'm going to assume you also didn't read the longer article. My bad actually - I should have just posted the entire thing since it details the situation so much better. Only reason I didn't was because it's long and starts out much slower.

Oh well.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #41

I'd have thrown the guy a fiver, but I wouldn't have stopped.
To be honest, I've never even met anyone who listens to classical music besides people that are A: trying really hard to look cultured/chic B: were forced to take lessons in some lame instrument as a kid, or C: music teachers or majors...

If it's your thing, no offense and all, I just don't really get the appeal; find most classical music mind-numbingly boring. I like Rachmaninoff and Stravinksy, and I dig some orechestral soundtrack type stuff, but that's about as close as I come.

Put Steve Vai, Dimebag Darrell, Yngwie Malmsteen, Buckethead, etc... in a disguise on the street, and see if that doesn't get a few people to stop and stare.

Post: #42

(01-08-2013 06:29 PM)Caligula Wrote:  thedude, do you have any recommendations for getting into classical music? I've listened to it a lot but sense that something is missing, I don't understand it very well. Any resources or books?

Other cats in this thread obviously know much more than me, but you should let your avatar lead by example, and check out the Barry Lyndon Soundtrack. In fact, I'm listening to Sarabande as I type this. How else to appreciate Kubrick's most underrated movie?





I'm a sucker for some harpsichord. Gotta love those trills!





thedude, tenderman, and everyone else,

How do you rate this performance?





Edit - Can't forget Bukowski. Apparently he preferred Mahler, Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, & Sibelius.

Post: #43

(01-10-2013 04:32 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  To be honest, I've never even met anyone who listens to classical music besides people that are A: trying really hard to look cultured/chic B: were forced to take lessons in some lame instrument as a kid, or C: music teachers or majors...

That's strange.

I was raised in a trailer park by a single mom (a bartender and house-cleaner) with three kids. Music lessons weren't even a distinct reality for us. I don't know much about music at all, and I listen to classical music all the time. Hell, I remember listening to it as a kid in my walkman. I couldn't tell you who is who or what is what - I really know nothing about it - but I typically listen to it when I'm doing my writing work or when I'm cooking.

I don't turn it on when other people are around because the rednecks where I'm from would say some ignorant shit about it being gay, etc. I don't really care, but I'd rather just listen to it by myself if people aren't going to even try to appreciate it. Point being I'm obviously not listening in the hopes that someone will find me cultured (to fulfill that definition I think these people would have to only be listening in the presence of others).

If some white trash punk like me can develop a taste for it, I'm sure others do too. It can't be as frowned upon as people are assuming.

Or am I really just weird? lol I admit I'm obviously not normal, but I have met a couple other people here and there who've developed a taste for it. And a metro station full of government employees...surely there were some enthusiasts there.

There wouldn't even be classical radio stations if people didn't listen to this music at all anymore. And we're talking about a metro station full of government workers here.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #44

I would suggest for everyone to read the article in its entirety. I was very impressed with the quality of writing. After reading it I looked up the journalist and found out that this was a Pulitzer prize winning piece.

Post: #45

(01-09-2013 07:13 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(01-09-2013 03:30 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:I understand that people think the skill and majesty of the music SHOULD be appreciated, but in the real world it is not. (And arguably, it has never been)

Y'all need a red pill for culture.

The music Bell played probably wasn't majestic.

By this statement alone I'm going to assume you also didn't read the longer article. My bad actually - I should have just posted the entire thing since it details the situation so much better. Only reason I didn't was because it's long and starts out much slower.

Oh well.

I read the article in full when it was originally published. Trying to read it again I have to stop because every few sentences I think of that South Park episode where the entire city of San Francisco disappears up its own asshole. There may be moments of objectivity in there but it's so immersed in gushing emotion, assumptions, and smug superiority that I can't take it.

Post: #46

To elaborate/reiterate a bit, since despite my distaste for the article I confess it is not badly written. I just don't want to slog through and try and explain every single part that irritates me because I would waste my whole day and I don't think anyone cares that much.

Here's the crux:

Quote:"Let's say I took one of our more abstract masterpieces, say an Ellsworth Kelly, and removed it from its frame, marched it down the 52 steps that people walk up to get to the National Gallery, past the giant columns, and brought it into a restaurant. It's a $5 million painting. And it's one of those restaurants where there are pieces of original art for sale, by some industrious kids from the Corcoran School, and I hang that Kelly on the wall with a price tag of $150. No one is going to notice it. An art curator might look up and say: 'Hey, that looks a little like an Ellsworth Kelly. Please pass the salt.'"

Leithauser's point is that we shouldn't be too ready to label the Metro passersby unsophisticated boobs. Context matters.

Kant said the same thing. He took beauty seriously: In his Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, Kant argued that one's ability to appreciate beauty is related to one's ability to make moral judgments. But there was a caveat. Paul Guyer of the University of Pennsylvania, one of America's most prominent Kantian scholars, says the 18th-century German philosopher felt that to properly appreciate beauty, the viewing conditions must be optimal.

"Optimal," Guyer said, "doesn't mean heading to work, focusing on your report to the boss, maybe your shoes don't fit right."

So, if Kant had been at the Metro watching as Joshua Bell play to a thousand unimpressed passersby?

"He would have inferred about them," Guyer said, "absolutely nothing."

And that's that.

Except it isn't. To really understand what happened, you have to rewind that video and play it back from the beginning, from the moment Bell's bow first touched the strings.

They never address anything related to what makes Chaconne particularly unsuited to a street performance context (instead hype up how appropriate it is since it was originally written for solo violin and isn't a hack arrangement). The museum curator analogy is good, but instead of exploring why most people will not be able to appreciate the beauty of Chaconne without hearing it from start to finish, or that such an exposed, subtle piece is difficult to hear properly in a noisy subway station when you aren't paying attention, he rambles on about Emmanuel Kant before asserting that "nope, not true, here's why:" he then proceeds to describe a couple of unique and peculiar experiences in great detail, even calling one of them "cultural hero of the day."

Post: #47

The guy was playing a shitty playlist. Classic music sux. Play this shit and you'll get attention without an expensive fiddle. Jeez.

Post: #48

(01-10-2013 11:06 AM)Blaster Wrote:  To elaborate/reiterate a bit, since despite my distaste for the article I confess it is not badly written. I just don't want to slog through and try and explain every single part that irritates me because I would waste my whole day and I don't think anyone cares that much.

Here's the crux:

Quote:"Let's say I took one of our more abstract masterpieces, say an Ellsworth Kelly, and removed it from its frame, marched it down the 52 steps that people walk up to get to the National Gallery, past the giant columns, and brought it into a restaurant. It's a $5 million painting. And it's one of those restaurants where there are pieces of original art for sale, by some industrious kids from the Corcoran School, and I hang that Kelly on the wall with a price tag of $150. No one is going to notice it. An art curator might look up and say: 'Hey, that looks a little like an Ellsworth Kelly. Please pass the salt.'"

Leithauser's point is that we shouldn't be too ready to label the Metro passersby unsophisticated boobs. Context matters.

Kant said the same thing. He took beauty seriously: In his Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, Kant argued that one's ability to appreciate beauty is related to one's ability to make moral judgments. But there was a caveat. Paul Guyer of the University of Pennsylvania, one of America's most prominent Kantian scholars, says the 18th-century German philosopher felt that to properly appreciate beauty, the viewing conditions must be optimal.

"Optimal," Guyer said, "doesn't mean heading to work, focusing on your report to the boss, maybe your shoes don't fit right."

So, if Kant had been at the Metro watching as Joshua Bell play to a thousand unimpressed passersby?

"He would have inferred about them," Guyer said, "absolutely nothing."

And that's that.

Except it isn't. To really understand what happened, you have to rewind that video and play it back from the beginning, from the moment Bell's bow first touched the strings.

They never address anything related to what makes Chaconne particularly unsuited to a street performance context (instead hype up how appropriate it is since it was originally written for solo violin and isn't a hack arrangement). The museum curator analogy is good, but instead of exploring why most people will not be able to appreciate the beauty of Chaconne without hearing it from start to finish, or that such an exposed, subtle piece is difficult to hear properly in a noisy subway station when you aren't paying attention, he rambles on about Emmanuel Kant before asserting that "nope, not true, here's why:" he then proceeds to describe a couple of unique and peculiar experiences in great detail, even calling one of them "cultural hero of the day."

It pains me to admit it but yeah, I can see people not being moved by the Chaconne in d minor (I play this on guitar btw ) It's a long fucking movement and requires a few listens to really appreciate it. It's dark, brooding, and slow. It's one of the most amazing pieces ever written but you'd never know it listening to it in one go, let alone a 30 second sample in the subway station.

Post: #49

I like this thread. My grandma used to listen to classical music as she cooked.

(01-08-2013 04:46 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?"

This is my favorite part of this thread. We are surrounded by beauty, but we don't see it. Most of us live in a fog of negativity. We are in such a hurry to keep up with the other rats in the rat race that we don't appreciate the simple beauty around us.

Women, food, music, family, nature, etc.

We don't appreciate them enough.

Life is Beautiful..

(good movie)

Post: #50

Very sad to see what this world has turn to, I am no violin player or particular enjoy classical music but I would of stopped to listen to that music, people need to relearn to enjoy life!