# Vangelis from a classical perspective



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

As I would assume at least some of the members here are aware, Vangelis is an artist who helped to pioneer the electronic music genre and is often described as having a symphonic or neo-classical style. He is also often assigned the label of "genius" or "master". It doesn't take a degree in music theory, however, to recognize that generally speaking, Vangelis' compositions don't exhibit the same degree of structural sophistication that can found in the works of most "proper" classical composers. That being the case, I would be curious to know how Vangelis is viewed by classical music aficionados -- can it truly be said that he can stand side-by-side with the luminaries of the classical world, or is he simply not in the same league?

Another broader issue that this subject brings to mind for me is that of the relationship between complexity and quality/genius. Is it possible for a composition that is structurally simplistic relative to another to be considered on (or above) par with it in terms of quality, or is complexity a prerequisite? And if it's not a prerequisite, what are the other compositional qualities that in your mind would be indicative of high quality and/or genius?

For those unfamiliar with Vangelis:


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

radareyes said:


> That being the case, I would be curious to know how Vangelis is viewed by classical music aficionados -- can it truly be said that he can stand side-by-side with the luminaries of the classical world, or is he simply not in the same league?


As someone who appreciates Vangelis: no, he isn't in the same league because his music isn't classical music. It's not his aim to be in the same league. He is however good at what he does. Electronic music, sometimes of a heavily improvised nature. Largely self taught, strong intuitive feel for music and very skilful with electronic equipment to create the kind of music that he wants to make. He has had big commercial succes, but he's not all about that. I believe music comes first for him. He also does small and obscure projects when given the opportunity. And apparently he has more unreleased than released music. Nice person, good electronic musician, genuine creator, not classical.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

DeepR said:


> As someone who appreciates Vangelis: no, he isn't in the same league because his music isn't classical music. It's not his aim to be in the same league.


Interesting. I take it then that you subscribe to the school of thought that considers genres to be largely if not entirely incapable of being compared to one another? Or are you simply saying that classical music is in a league higher than that of any other genre?

As you may know, your opinion that Vangelis wouldn't qualify as classical isn't one that's shared by all who have categorized him over the years. Are you saying that _nothing_ that he's ever composed would qualify as classical music in your mind?

I'd also be curious to know your opinion about what characteristics a composition must have in order to qualify as belonging to the classical genre.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I am quite a fan of some of his work. Whether it is classical, or "really any good," are questions that I consider pretty much irrelevant.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

brianvds said:


> I am quite a fan of some of his work. Whether it is classical, or "really any good," are questions that I consider pretty much irrelevant.


Interesting -- though it does raise the question of why you made the choice to post a response in this thread, which is of course predicated on the perspective that genre definitions and attempts to determine the objective quality of a given artist's (Vangelis, in this case) output are in fact _not_ irrelevant. One might even say that posting such a response would be, well...irrelevant.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

radareyes said:


> Interesting -- though it does raise the question of why you made the choice to post a response in this thread, which is of course predicated on the perspective that genre definitions and attempts to determine the objective quality of a given artist's (Vangelis, in this case) output are in fact _not_ irrelevant. One might even say that posting such a response would be, well...irrelevant.


Good point, but on the other hand, a null response is also a data point, that might be of use for statistical purposes.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Already decades ago, some of his works were considered classical music:










Personally, I find his music OK, but I prefer Jean Michel Jarre in this idiom. I like his cooperations with Jon Anderson though.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

radareyes said:


> Interesting. I take it then that you subscribe to the school of thought that considers genres to be largely if not entirely incapable of being compared to one another? Or are you simply saying that classical music is in a league higher than that of any other genre?
> 
> As you may know, your opinion that Vangelis wouldn't qualify as classical isn't one that's shared by all who have categorized him over the years. Are you saying that _nothing_ that he's ever composed would qualify as classical music in your mind?
> 
> I'd also be curious to know your opinion about what characteristics a composition must have in order to qualify as belonging to the classical genre.


Not a "higher" league, different. I doubt Vangelis ever intended his music to be classical music. The labels in the record stores don't mean very much either. 
I can't speak for all his music, but everything I've heard (which is quite a lot) is in my opinion electronic/new age/film music or a combination of those.
It's impossible to say in general what makes a piece of music "classical", but some indications would be: the composer is educated in the tradition of western classical/art music and composes music in that tradition, there's a written score of the music and the music is recognized as classical music. I think most people who are into classical music would not classify Vangelis' music as classical music, which, again, doesn't say anything about the quality of Vangelis music (other than that it isn't classical music) because he operates in different genres.
But perhaps we should be more specific: which albums do you think are classical music and why?


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Vangelis' music can be very enjoyable, in small doses. But I can't help thinking the man essentially keeps shooting himself in the foot by sticking to playing all those synthesizers at the same time, and refusing to use technology or learn music notation. So many of his most popular pieces feature just one or two little melodies repeated over and over again, it's insane. And with the other pieces, well, I love Blade Runner Blues and Memories of Green. But when the same approach - formless, free-flowing improvisation united by a tonality, or a mode, or just timbre - is stretched into an hour of music as in Mythodea (which is for an orchestra, a choir, and two sopranos, and consists of essentially a very, very, very long soprano aria over the same orchestration for about an hour, plus a "borrowed" piece from Holst, played twice), it's showing Vangelis' limits very clearly.

Some years ago I remember there was a radio (?) interview with him, and at the end the interviewer asked him to play something, and they decided some variations on the Chariots of Fire theme would be good. Vangelis played for some minutes and I was shocked to hear he's not really changing anything other than accompaniment. He just played the same melody over and over and over, adding a cymbal crash here, a synth pad there, maybe a stray piano or trumpet note, but he seemed virtually unable to invent any kind of variation on the spot. Or at least that's how I remember it. So, to recapitulate, not CM, which requires at least some work with your melodic material, instead of just repeating it.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

DeepR said:


> But perhaps we should be more specific: which albums do you think are classical music and why?


Generally I tend to evaluate music on a piece-by-piece basis as opposed to looking at entire albums, but if I were forced to take only albums into account, I would say El Greco (the album, not the soundtrack, which I have yet to hear and so couldn't comment on) and Mythodea would be the best candidates of those of his oeuvre for qualifying as classical. In the case of Mythodea, the compositions were performed by an orchestra and an operatic choir, which I would think would be fairly good indicators that the pieces in question were composed in a classical style. With El Greco, though it is a collection of music that to my knowledge was performed exclusively on synths, it's synthesized in such a way as to sound largely organic, and its structures, though characteristically on the simplistic side, are in my opinion clearly classical in form. That being said, however, I'm not a music theorist or really anything close to being an expert on the subject, which is of course one of the reasons why I wanted to solicit the opinions of those who frequent a forum like this one.

Oh, and in case you're interested, here's a more recent composition of Vangelis' that may change your mind about him not qualifying as a classical composer:


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

Myriadi said:


> So, to recapitulate, not CM, which requires at least some work with your melodic material, instead of just repeating it.


I think I have a good sense of where you're coming from, and I would largely agree with your criticisms of Mythodea, which is easily one of my least favorite of his albums (though in his defense, if his claim that he wrote the entire symphony in just an hour is true, I'd say it's amazing that it's even coherent ). Just to play devil's advocate with regard to your comment about how he comes up with just one or two little melodies and then repeats them over and over, I think it could also be said that the way in which he uses the "gradual development" (for lack of a better term) compositional template is not only not an indicator of his shortcomings as a composer, but in some sense actually serves to demonstrate his brilliance as one. For starters, though I would agree with you that he tends to write simple melodies, I also think it's safe to say that many if not most of them are also very good melodies: well-articulated, emotionally expressive, and impactful. Perhaps more important, however, is the way that he structures many of his pieces so as to allow the main melody to act as the anchor point for the piece, which then largely becomes dependent on the subtlety and development of its supplementary structures -- sub-melodies, instrumentation changes or additions, "soundscape sculpting", etc. -- for the maintenance of the listener's interest. It's the subtlety and immaculateness of those supplementary structures, in addition of course to his skill as a tunesmith, that for me endows that form of his music with its ability to captivate.

And in case you're interested, I think there's a good chance that you'll find this improvisation of his: 



to be at least somewhat more impressive than the Chariots of Fire one that you heard.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

Sorry, posting issues...


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Let's just say _some _of his music has certain elements of classical music, just like film music does.
I know Mythodea and consider it a pastiche of sorts, but I wouldn't call it classical music myself.
The Elegy is nice enough, though I believe I heard the Russian lady say it was transcribed by someone so I'm not sure how much of it is Vangelis. Still that's probably the most classical music I've heard from him. Whatever the case, I prefer his electronic music.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

DeepR said:


> Let's just say _some _of his music has certain elements of classical music, just like film music does.
> I know Mythodea and consider it a pastiche of sorts, but I wouldn't call it classical music myself.
> The Elegy is nice enough, though I believe I heard the Russian lady say it was transcribed by someone so I'm not sure how much of it is Vangelis. Still that's probably the most classical music I've heard from him. Whatever the case, I prefer his electronic music.


Just remembered that I forgot to mention that I would also have to disagree with the comment you made in your initial response about how it's not Vangelis' aim to be in the same league as those composers who would traditionally be considered to belong to the classical genre. Based on the interviews that he's given over the years that I've heard or read, I'd say it's absolutely his aim to be in the same league in the sense that he strives to make music that is of a very high calibre and that has a significant degree of artistic merit. As far as the question of whether or not it's his aim to be in the same league in the sense that he (at least at times) sets out to compose music that would generally be described as classical, I would be less sure, but probably still willing to bet that it's happened at least a handful of times.

The thing about Vangelis is that (to his credit in my opinion) large portions of his music are, as you said in part, a seamlessly fused pastiche or amalgam of components from different genres (though ironically Mythodea is one of only a few albums of his that in my opinion aren't as stylistically diverse as his main body of work), which naturally makes it difficult to categorize. I would argue that your above statement that his music contains certain elements of classical would be equally applicable to a number of other genres, namely berlin school electronica, jazz, new age, progressive rock, avant garde and ambient. As soon as one grants that he is in fact an eclectic composer who is drawing upon a diverse array of styles, it seems to me that from the perspective of categorizing him it then becomes a question of whether we discount genres simply as a result of the fact that he is largely not composing in one or another of them exclusively -- what you seem to be doing -- or if we describe him as essentially belonging to a number of genres simultaneously. I personally would be more inclined towards the latter option, meaning of course that he would amongst other things qualify as a classical composer.

As a final note, here's a thought on what would perhaps be an effective way to categorize Vangelis' music: If we were to have random passersby listen to random samples of Mythodea, how do you think the majority of them would classify it? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority (at least 90%) would call it either classical or opera without hesitation. But that's of course just me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I had not heard Vangelis before. The few works I sampled on this thread do not strike me as quite classical, but I did listen to _Invisible Connections_, which as I understand it is considered experimental, and I might classify that as classical.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2017)

OP, can you explain why you want us to confirm to you that Vangelis composes classical music.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

Tulse said:


> OP, can you explain why you want us to confirm to you that Vangelis composes classical music.


What makes you think that I want you (collectively) to confirm to me that Vangelis composes classical music?


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

radareyes said:


> Perhaps more important, however, is the way that he structures many of his pieces so as to allow the main melody to act as the anchor point for the piece, which then largely becomes dependent on the subtlety and development of its supplementary structures -- sub-melodies, instrumentation changes or additions, "soundscape sculpting", etc. -- for the maintenance of the listener's interest. It's the subtlety and immaculateness of those supplementary structures, in addition of course to his skill as a tunesmith, that for me endows that form of his music with its ability to captivate.


In a way what you're describing - and it really does take place in much of Vangelis' music - is the compositional template Ravel used in _Boléro_. Going back to your original questions - "is complexity a prerequisite?" - Boléro is something of an exception in the CM world, a piece which even the composer himself referred to as "not music". There's a great quote from Ravel talking about the piece, which is given in Wikipedia:



Maurice Ravel said:


> It constitutes an experiment in a very special and limited direction, and should not be suspected of aiming at achieving anything different from, or anything more than, it actually does achieve. Before its first performance, I issued a warning to the effect that what I had written was a piece lasting seventeen minutes and consisting wholly of "orchestral tissue without music" - of one very long, gradual crescendo. There are no contrasts, and practically no invention except the plan and the manner of execution.


I think this sums up very nicely what CM in general is expected to be - contrasts, constant invention, all kinds of reworking of original melodic material, and so on. The sonata form alone exemplifies this - two or more groups of themes engaging in dialogue, or violent confrontation, or merging, all along a parallel process in the progression of harmonies. (This is actually a rather large topic, but for the purposes of this conversation hopefully this brief yet poetic (sic!) passage should work.)



radareyes said:


> And in case you're interested, I think there's a good chance that you'll find this improvisation of his:
> 
> 
> 
> to be at least somewhat more impressive than the Chariots of Fire one that you heard.


It certainly is. But I confess I like the 80s electronic works much more. Being what seems to me a very well informed Vangelis fan, I imagine you've seen or heard the improvisations from the Musical Express interview - those were very beautiful, extremely interesting. The later orchestral pieces - well, I can't tell you, when I hear the sound of the synthesized cello, it's breaking my heart a little bit, since as an avid CM listener I know full well what a cello can sound like. Probably not an effect Vangelis has in mind, but I could never shake the impression off - he's not the only one making synth-orchestra music.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Seem to recal that Papathanissou had another title on Deutsch Grammophone????


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Fuzzy sets. The borders between genres of music are fuzzy. There is stuff that everyone would consider classical, there is stuff that nobody would consider classical, and there is a boarderland of music that different percentages of people would consider classical. 

This is not amazing. This is not new.

Vangelis is in that borderland. Some consider it classical. I think it is a stretch to call it classical. If someone told me they were into classical music, and they put Vangelis on, I would wonder what they meant by classical.

But there is music that most if not all folks would agree is classical, which I struggle with. OK. So?

What I don't "get" is why it matters. What does the imprimatur "Classical" add? That it is good? That we should take it seriously? That it appeals to the intellect? Those things are true regardless what you call it. Arguing the borders is a troll's game.


I first discovered Vangelis with the opening to Blade Runner. The music got into me like no other. The experience of it was beyond anything musical for me at the time. I regret now that I have heard it so many times, because the magic of the first time is gone. There are moments when other music puts a momentary reminder of that into me and its like a beautiful women with whom I was once intimate saying hello from just outside my peripheral vision. That crazy good.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

For those who haven't seen it, (both of you):


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

JeffD said:


> For those who haven't seen it, (both of you):


Magical stuff indeed. There is often something terribly bleak and lonely about his music. But very beautiful too.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

While Vangelis' electronic music is often very interesting, his pre-electronic rock output is also noteworthy. The final album ("666") by the band "Aphrodite's Child" which he formed with Demis Roussos (among others) is a minor proto-prog classic.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Desolation Path
Another moody piece from Blade Runner that didn't make it to the soundtrack, but was released 25 years later.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

He really did capture a timeless, wonderful, moody sound in Blade Runner, one that can only be made with synthesizers and electronics.

Other than "The Bounty" I wish he had composed more soundtracks in a similar style. 

Instead of the quasi orchestral stuff he made later (such as 1492: Conquest of Paradise and Alexander, which still have their moments).


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

"Sex Power" '70 was his first lp and a soundtrack as well.

"...Chiens Aboyer" ("Can you hear the dogs barking") is a good early soundtrack.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Vangelis was not musically trained, nor can he read music. But he does have an ear, so he can compose simpler and short fragments, which is enough for film music or less traditional music.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

DeepR said:


> He really did capture a timeless, wonderful, moody sound in Blade Runner, one that can only be made with synthesizers and electronics.
> 
> Other than "The Bounty" I wish he had composed more soundtracks in a similar style.


_Antarctica _also comes to ind here.



> Instead of the quasi orchestral stuff he made later (such as 1492: Conquest of Paradise and Alexander, which still have their moments).


Yup, I also think he does better with all those electronic instruments. Apart from the film music, some of the standalone albums from that period are great. My all time favorite is _Soil Festivities_, but some of the others also work very well.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Wendy Carlos is both electronic and classical, including compositionally. Almost any of her compositions are more complex than Vangelis. Plus, she has experimented with alternate tunings.

I do like some of Vangelis, for what he is. I have some.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

Amazing how many contributors to this thread didn't bother to actually read it prior to responding. How do I know this, you ask? Because if they had, they would almost undoubtedly have noticed that nowhere in my initial post did I mention anything about genre boundaries, nor did I express any interest in having the members of this forum confirm to me that Vangelis' output can be categorized as classical music. Rather, I asked two (three, technically, but the third was more of an adjunct to the second) entirely different questions: 1) Is Vangelis in the same league as the heavy-hitters of the classical world (which DeepR answered in terms of genres for some reason), and 2) What is the relationship between the structural complexity or sophistication of a given piece and its quality, if any?



JeffD said:


> Fuzzy sets. The borders between genres of music are fuzzy. There is stuff that everyone would consider classical, there is stuff that nobody would consider classical, and there is a boarderland of music that different percentages of people would consider classical.
> 
> This is not amazing. This is not new.


Again, not reading a thread prior to posting in it typically isn't a great idea, as evidenced in this case by the fact that I covered what you're clearly attempting to say here at greater length in post #14. I say 'attempting' because none of what you've written above is reflective of a person that has accurately identified the crux of this particular issue. That being the case, please allow me to clarify: it's not so much that Vangelis occupies a "borderland of music" that's defined by the fact that a certain percentage of people would categorize his music as classical while others wouldn't, it's that he largely defies strict genre categorization entirely. Again, I devoted an entire paragraph to this in the aforementioned post.



JeffD said:


> Vangelis is in that borderland. Some consider it classical. I think it is a stretch to call it classical. If someone told me they were into classical music, and they put Vangelis on, I would wonder what they meant by classical.


I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I? Because to wonder what they meant by classical would first require that I assume that when they told me that they were into classical, they meant that they were _exclusively_ into classical -- which of course would be an unreasonable assumption to make (most assumptions are, as it turns out ).



JeffD said:


> But there is music that most if not all folks would agree is classical, which I struggle with. OK. So?
> 
> What I don't "get" is why it matters. What does the imprimatur "Classical" add? That it is good? That we should take it seriously? That it appeals to the intellect? Those things are true regardless what you call it. Arguing the borders is a troll's game.


In your eagerness to label me a troll you managed to breeze right past the issue that basically inspired me to create this thread in first place. So, how about instead of simply making the completely unsupported assertion that Vangelis' body of work is good, that we should take it seriously, and that it appeals to the intellect, you explain _why_ you think that all of those things are true?



JeffD said:


> I first discovered Vangelis with the opening to Blade Runner. The music got into me like no other. The experience of it was beyond anything musical for me at the time. I regret now that I have heard it so many times, because the magic of the first time is gone. There are moments when other music puts a momentary reminder of that into me and its like a beautiful women with whom I was once intimate saying hello from just outside my peripheral vision. That crazy good.


I find that listening to other music and then returning to the repeatedly-listened-to piece or artist often helps to rekindle my sense of appreciation for it -- though (apparently) unlike you I personally don't have a problem with succumbing to regret, a feature of my psychological make-up that very likely increases the degree to which my enjoyment of a given object of my experience is able to be sustained, which in turn makes the initially-mentioned method significantly less relevant.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

radareyes said:


> 1) Is Vangelis in the same league as the heavy-hitters of the classical world (which DeepR answered in terms of genres for some reason)


Your question was: "can it truly be said that he can stand side-by-side with the luminaries of the classical world, or is he simply not in the same league?"
It's kind of hard to keep the matter of genre out of this when you ask a question like that. If you're going to make comparisons then it's inevitable to ask whether Vangelis composes classical music or not. 
I must say you seem rather defensive about all this while there's really no reason for that, considering the polite responses and repeatedly expressed appreciation for Vangelis by various posters.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

DeepR said:


> Your question was: "can it truly be said that he can stand side-by-side with the luminaries of the classical world, or is he simply not in the same league?"
> It's kind of hard to keep the matter of genre out of this when you ask a question like that. If you're going to make comparisons then it's inevitable to ask whether Vangelis composes classical music or not.


I find it fascinating that for you the question of whether or not a given artist's output can be considered comparable to the output of artists from a particular genre in terms of quality is contingent on the establishment of the genre that said artist belongs to. What do you think it is about that issue that would make you think that it would need to be approached in that way?



DeepR said:


> I must say you seem rather defensive about all this while there's really no reason for that, considering the polite responses and repeatedly expressed appreciation for Vangelis by various posters.


Interesting. What do you think it is about the fact that this thread contains polite responses and repeated expressions of appreciation for Vangelis that would make you think that the way in which I recently chose to respond was uncalled for?


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

radareyes said:


> Amazing how many contributors to this thread didn't bother to actually read it prior to responding... Again, not reading a thread prior to posting in it typically isn't a great idea,


You got me man. I have to fess up. I rarely read any posts at all.



> In your eagerness to label me a troll


My apologizes. I see I was in error. A troll is someone who starts arguments.



> I find that listening to other music and then returning to the repeatedly-listened-to piece or artist often helps to rekindle my sense of appreciation for it -- though (apparently) unlike you I personally don't have a problem with succumbing to regret, a feature of my psychological make-up that very likely increases the degree to which my enjoyment of a given object of my experience is able to be sustained, which in turn makes the initially-mentioned method significantly less relevant.


In this particular case, my ability to respond was not helped at all by reading your paragraph. Several times in fact.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

JeffD said:


> You got me man. I have to fess up. I rarely read any posts at all.


The implication here seems to be that your previous response offered something to the readers of this thread that hadn't already been offered up until that point. Respectfully I would encourage you to consider the possibility that that's in actuality not true. Alternatively, if you think that there's some aspect of that response of yours that I was undervaluing, you could simply point it out.

But if instead you'd prefer to continue to rely on sarcasm-based ego posturing when faced with situations like this one, that would of course be your call to make. 



JeffD said:


> My apologizes. I see I was in error. A troll is someone who starts arguments.


To define a troll merely as "someone who starts arguments" is a little imprecise, don't you think? Do you really think that it wouldn't be possible for two (or more) people to engage in an argument that's productive and that has a beneficial outcome for all of its participants?



JeffD said:


> In this particular case, my ability to respond was not helped at all by reading your paragraph. Several times in fact.


I'm sorry to hear that. Feel free to let me know if there's anything about that or any other paragraph that I've written thus far that you'd like for me to clarify for you, and I'd be happy to make an attempt.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

radareyes said:


> The implication here seems to be that your previous response offered something to the readers of this thread that hadn't already been offered up until that point. Respectfully I would encourage you to consider the possibility that that's in actuality not true.


You speak for the readers of this thread? I missed the election.

If we are respectfully encouraging each other, I might mention avoiding the pseudo-intellectual translation of simple questions:

"I love Vangelis. Do you think Vangelis deserves the same kind of respect as Bach, Mozart etc.? And if not why not? What is the criteria for the kind of respect you all seem to give the icons of classical music?"


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Seriously though:



> radareyes said:
> 
> 
> > -- can it truly be said that he can stand side-by-side with the luminaries of the classical world, or is he simply not in the same league?
> ...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

radar eyes said "1) Is Vangelis in the same league as the heavy-hitters of the classical world (which DeepR answered in terms of genres for some reason), and 2) What is the relationship between the structural complexity or sophistication of a given piece and its quality, if any?"

If he produces effective art for his audience, it doesn't really matter. Besides that, it's electronic music, and is aurally "ear" produced music, like other popular forms, and not having a score is OK. These forms are produced & created aurally, not on paper. There are so many differences in the forms that genre comparison becomes irrelevant.

Structural complexity is just an element, and does not relate directly to the "quality" of music, or if it's "good" or not, because good/bad are subjective factors, not objective qualities. 

My favorite of his is the least popular, most "abstract" electronic thing he ever did, "Beauborg:"








I also like "China."It's very effective, evocative music, and it works for me.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

JeffD said:


> If we are respectfully encouraging each other, I might mention avoiding the pseudo-intellectual translation of simple questions:
> 
> "I love Vangelis. Do you think Vangelis deserves the same kind of respect as Bach, Mozart etc.? And if not why not? What is the criteria for the kind of respect you all seem to give the icons of classical music?"


Your rephrasing of my initial question presupposes both my reason/s for asking the question as well as the spirit in which I asked it. Could it be possible that I had reasons other than a desire to project an image of intelligence (a.k.a. pseudo-intellectualism) for phrasing the question in the way that I did?



JeffD said:


> Seriously though:


Ah, so you've finally decided to stop making vague and totally unsubstantiated personal attacks against me using sarcastic insinuations. You know something Jeff, I have to admit: I was beginning to think that you didn't have it in you. 

Out of curiosity, have you been operating on the assumption that the way that you've been interacting with me up until this point has been coming across as a form of humor? Because if so, you might want to consider putting more thought into the kind of image that you project when you interact with people online. 



JeffD said:


> I get that you are not trying to imply that Vangelis is a classical composer. So to answer, its hard to compare. There is not a single league. There is great and interesting and serious music in many genres. Fanatics of one genre may never have heard of the stars of another genre. And would not necessarily be in any kind of privileged position to evaluate it. Its hard to understand, seriously, why it matters at all what classical music fans think of Vangelis (unless one includes the implication that Vangelis is or should be considered classical).


This perspective is at least roughly the same as the one that DeepR asserted a few posts back, so I'll pose roughly the same question in response: What is it about soliciting the opinions of classical music fans about the quality of a given artist's output that in your mind would dictate that we first establish that the artist in question belongs to the classical genre?



JeffD said:


> If you are asking whether Vangelis can be given the same "respect" as the icons of classical music, its further complicated by time. I think its a matter for the prognosticators. Will Vangelis have as large an impact on music in general, to say nothing of his particular genre,


And what genre might that be?



JeffD said:


> as did Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven? In a hundred or two hundred years will composers be using and responding to the structural innovations that Vangelis as accomplished? Only time will tell. My opinion is no, but I am not confident that I would have been able to recognize the genius of a Mozart if I were alive in his time.


Why would affording respect to a given artist be contingent upon other artists using that artist's structural innovations? You seem to be operating on the assumption that the value that history assigns things is always justified. What if artists 200 years from now weren't using Vangelis' structural innovations not because they lacked merit, but because he had been able to achieve something musically that was essentially inimitable? Or because they hadn't been exposed to his work as a result of the fact that it had been undervalued in the eyes of history for whatever reason?



JeffD said:


> Truth is, I would have to know what you mean by genius. It is impossible to answer, I think, otherwise.
> 
> For example, if you measure quality/geinus through its impact, then complexity is not necessary. I could make the case that Vangelis in the of Blade Runner has a similar impact as Also Sprach Zarathustra, Op. 30 - Strauss. Comparable impact anyway. It certainly did on me. And complexity had nothing to do with it. (I do not think it was a coincedence that 2001 Space Odyssey and Blade Runner had that kind of beginning. I could imagine Riddley Scott telling Vangelis that he wanted that kind of effect for his movie.)


What you say here would only be true if we were to first assume that you're only capable of being impacted by music that has actual merit. How did you rule out the possibility that your musical tastes lack refinement and are therefore an unreliable means of assessing the quality of a given piece/artist?



JeffD said:


> If you measure quality/genius as having impact far into the future, as I mention above it is impossible to tell. Not just because we have no access to the future, but also because history is rich with examples of genius not recognized as such in its own time. I am not as much into electronic music to know or recognize the innovations of Vangelis, but I am open to a future where they can be explicitly described and their impact measured.


Why would your lack of familiarity with the innovations of Vangelis preclude the possibility of explicitly describing as well as measuring the impact of those innovations in the present?



JeffD said:


> If quality/genius means worthy of being taken seriously intellectually, then your idea of complexity has some importance. If something is too simple, if the construction is immediately and easily grasped, it is harder to engage the intellect about it. The emotions, sure, but the intellect, not so sure. Blues for example, has a very straight forward structure. But the emotional response is gigantic. Intellectual response is besides the point.


Your sense of what qualifies as "intellectual" seems to be somewhat rigid. Why would it not be possible for a simplistically structured piece to have been heavily informed by a highly developed intellect in a way that could at least potentially imbue it with the capacity to stimulate some aspect of the intellect of someone listening to it, but not necessarily in a way that would lend itself to an in-depth analysis using a musical theory heuristic (which is the kind of approach that your comment about "engaging the intellect" would seem to dictate that we take)?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Genre doesn't matter for how I enjoy and value music. I enjoy Vangelis' music regardless of genre. But when someone starts a topic called "Vangelis from a classical perspective" and basically asks whether Vangelis is in the same league as the great classical composers, then the question whether Vangelis composes classical music or not is very relevant, if you want to provide some kind of meaningful answer to those questions. How can any artist be in the same league as classical composers without composing classical music? It would be a meaningless comparison.
Vangelis, while certain elements that remind of classical music might be present in _some_ of his music, is not a classical composer therefore not in the same league, but in a different league. Same could be said for some other largely electronic artists, many film composers, game music composers etc.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> radar eyes said "1) Is Vangelis in the same league as the heavy-hitters of the classical world (which DeepR answered in terms of genres for some reason), and 2) What is the relationship between the structural complexity or sophistication of a given piece and its quality, if any?"
> 
> If he produces effective art for his audience, it doesn't really matter. Besides that, it's electronic music, and is aurally "ear" produced music, like other popular forms, and not having a score is OK. These forms are produced & created aurally, not on paper. There are so many differences in the forms that genre comparison becomes irrelevant.
> 
> ...


Interesting perspective, millionrainbows -- which makes it even more of a shame that as a result of the fact that you've neglected to explain why you think that any of what you said is actually true, no one would be justified in taking it seriously.

By the way, I agree with you about China being a good album -- it's in my top 5 of his ouevre.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

DeepR said:


> Genre doesn't matter for how I enjoy and value music. I enjoy Vangelis' music regardless of genre. But when someone starts a topic called "Vangelis from a classical perspective" and basically asks whether Vangelis is in the same league as the great classical composers, then the question whether Vangelis composes classical music or not is very relevant, if you want to provide some kind of meaningful answer to those questions. How can any artist be in the same league as classical composers without composing classical music? It would be a meaningless comparison.
> Vangelis, while certain elements that remind of classical music might be present in _some_ of his music, is not a classical composer therefore not in the same league, but in a different league. Same could be said for some other largely electronic artists, many film composers, game music composers etc.


Clearly my attempts to tactfully alleviate your confusion with regard to this issue aren't working, so I guess I'll try something a little more direct: in addition to being narrow-minded and unimaginative, your above perspective is based on a conflation of the words 'league' and 'genre'.

Feel free to let me know if any aspect of my criticism doesn't make sense to you, and I'll be happy to elaborate.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, there’s no way that Beethoven could have written Vangelis’s music, even on a good day. So I guess that makes Vangelis greater than Beethoven! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2018)

radareyes said:


> or is he simply not in the same league?





DeepR said:


> It's not his aim to be in the same league.


Vangelis is not playing the same sport, so how could he be in the same league?


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Vangelis is not playing the same sport, so how could he be in the same league?


Hi MacLeod.  Am I correct in thinking that when you say that Vangelis is not playing the same sport, you mean that he isn't composing in the same genre?


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2018)

radareyes said:


> Hi MacLeod.  Am I correct in thinking that when you say that Vangelis is not playing the same sport, you mean that he isn't composing in the same genre?


I'm questioning the validity of your analogy with sporting leagues.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I'm questioning the validity of your analogy with sporting leagues.


And are you questioning the validity of my analogy with sporting leagues by equating the word 'sport' with the word 'genre'?


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2018)

radareyes said:


> And are you questioning the validity of my analogy with sporting leagues by equating the word 'sport' with the word 'genre'?


It's your analogy - you explain what you mean by referring to 'leagues' (or more accurately, the idea that Vangelis may or may not be 'in the same league').


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> It's your analogy - you explain what you mean by referring to 'leagues' (or more accurately, the idea that Vangelis may or may not be 'in the same league').


Though you're correct that I made an analogy in my initial question by using the word 'league', your recent post extended that analogy by asserting that Vangelis isn't playing the same sport -- meaning of course that in this context, it's actually your analogy. That being the case, I'll ask you the question once more: Am I correct in thinking that when you said that Vangelis isn't playing the same sport, you were using the word 'sport' as a metaphor for the word 'genre'?


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2018)

radareyes said:


> Though you're correct that I made an analogy in my initial question by using the world 'league', your recent post extended that analogy by asserting that Vangelis isn't playing the same sport -- meaning of course that in this context, it's actually your analogy. That being the case, I'll ask you the question once more: Am I correct in thinking that when you said that Vangelis isn't playing the same sport, you were using the word 'sport' as a metaphor for the word 'genre'?


I'll refer the honourable Member to my previous reply


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I'll refer the honourable Member to my previous reply


Ah, well if we're referring each other to previous replies, then I'd highly recommend simply reading the thread from start to finish. I think you'll find that I address the issue that your initial question raises a good 5 times or so.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

radareyes said:


> Clearly my attempts to tactfully alleviate your confusion with regard to this issue aren't working, so I guess I'll try something a little more direct: in addition to being narrow-minded and unimaginative, your above perspective is based on a conflation of the words 'league' and 'genre'.
> 
> Feel free to let me know if any aspect of my criticism doesn't make sense to you, and I'll be happy to elaborate.


I've read your posts and there's no point in elaborating. I'm not confused and narrow-minded, I'm applying simple logic. Your question about Vangelis being in the "same league" as classical composers remains pointless without looking at what classical music is and whether Vangelis' composes anything of the sorts. 
You've described certain perceived qualities of Vangelis' music that may be similar to qualities present in classical music. But those qualities are present in lots of other music as well. It's not just Vangelis music and classical music that share these intricate qualities that you've described. That way, lots of composers of lots of different music would be in the "same league". See, leave genre out of it, pretend it's not there, and the answer to your question becomes vague and pointless.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2018)

Here's what you get if you ask Presto Classical...

https://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/classical/search?search_query=vangelis


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2018)

Then again, look what you get if you ask about The Beatles...

https://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/classical/search?search_query=The+Beatles


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

DeepR said:


> See, leave genre out of it, pretend it's not there, and the answer to your question becomes vague and pointless.


Ah, if only it were true, eh DeepR? 

Let me know if you change your mind about not wanting me to elaborate.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2018)

radareyes said:


> Ah, well if we're referring each other to previous replies, then I'd highly recommend simply reading the thread from start to finish. I think you'll find that I address the issue that your initial question raises a good 5 times or so.


Read the thread in its entirety? Do not assume that, because you think I've overlooked the 5 times you address the issue, I haven't read the thread.

Since it was you who started the 'same league' analogy, my response is not an extension at all. Unless you meant something that I have failed to understand about your 'same league' comment, which is why I've asked for clarification.

Setting aside the 'league/sport' issue, your question about "how Vangelis is viewed by classical music aficionados" is being answered quite clearly.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Read the thread in its entirety? Do not assume that, because you think I've overlooked the 5 times you address the issue, I haven't read the thread.


Oh I see, so you _have_ read the thread, you just haven't read it carefully, is that it? In that case, please allow me to rephrase my initial recommendation: I'd highly recommend that you _carefully_ read the thread from start to finish.

Hope that clears things up for you. 



MacLeod said:


> Since it was you who started the 'same league' analogy, my response is not an extension at all.
> Unless you meant something that I have failed to understand about your 'same league' comment, which is why I've asked for clarification.


In addition to your apparent lack of clarity about what I meant when I used the phrase 'in the same league', you also seem to be unclear about what the definition of an analogy is. Suffice it to say, to use a word analogically doesn't by any means dictate that one continue to include more elements from the metaphorically-used word's literal domain. Of course, one _can_ do this -- but if they do it by using another person's analogy as a starting point, as you did, then the analogy can no longer be legitimately attributed solely to its originator. And because my side of our interaction started with a question about the portion of the analogy that you created, I of course referred to it accordingly in subsequent posts.



MacLeod said:


> Setting aside the 'league/sport' issue, your question about "how Vangelis is viewed by classical music aficionados" is being answered quite clearly.


That statement wasn't a question per se as it was made as part of a broader statement (hence the lack of a question mark, amongst other things) -- but it's interesting that you felt the need to state that, MacLeod.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

radareyes said:


> Could it be possible that I had reasons other than a desire to project an image of intelligence (a.k.a. pseudo-intellectualism) for phrasing the question in the way that I did?


When I see hoof prints I think horses. Yea, it could be zebras, but that is not the way to bet.



> Because if so, you might want to consider putting more thought into the kind of image that you project when you interact with people online.


The device has not been invented that can measure how little I am worried about the kind image I project to you. Oh and 



> This perspective is at least roughly the same as the one that DeepR asserted a few posts back, so I'll pose roughly the same question in response: What is it about soliciting the opinions of classical music fans about the quality of a given artist's output that in your mind would dictate that we first establish that the artist in question belongs to the classical genre?


I think you mis-understand. I was saying that fans of particular genres very often are not into other genres. A classical music fan is in not necessarily in any special position to comment on Vangelis. We don't/can't become familiar with everything. No special insight into electronic music is provided by an enthusiasm for classical music. It would be like asking baseball fans if they liked Vangelis as much as they like the world series.



> You seem to be operating on the assumption that the value that history assigns things is always justified.


That is a point. History has applied more than a few unjust verdicts. On the other hand what else do we have? I mean, what criteria is there without the voice of history. This whole kind of discussion would boil down to "I like Vangelis because XXX and you should to." History provides a pretty good, though flawed, criterion, in that it is pretty objective (though its interpretation is not) and it is not something you or I can influence much.



> What if artists 200 years from now weren't using Vangelis' structural innovations not because they lacked merit, but because he had been able to achieve something musically that was essentially inimitable?


Vangelis is so good that nobody in the next 200 years is capable of using any of his ideas effectively?

I guess it is possible, but I would think if history ignores someone, the explanation is more likely because that someone did not produce anything of sufficient interest to enough people.



> What you say here would only be true if we were to first assume that you're only capable of being impacted by music that has actual merit. How did you rule out the possibility that your musical tastes lack refinement and are therefore an unreliable means of assessing the quality of a given piece/artist?


I figured that if such a noted musicologist as yourself were so interested in my thoughts as to single me out for response and discussion, there must be some merit to my tastes and my thoughts. Why do you care what I think?



> Why would your lack of familiarity with the innovations of Vangelis preclude the possibility of explicitly describing as well as measuring the impact of those innovations in the present?


It would preclude _my_ recognition of those innovations and _my_ recognition of the impact.



> Your sense of what qualifies as "intellectual" seems to be somewhat rigid. Why would it not be possible for a simplistically structured piece to have been heavily informed by a highly developed intellect in a way that could at least potentially imbue it with the capacity to stimulate some aspect of the intellect of someone listening to it, but not necessarily in a way that would lend itself to an in-depth analysis using a musical theory heuristic (which is the kind of approach that your comment about "engaging the intellect" would seem to dictate that we take)?


If not musical theory heuristcs, then what are we talking about? Are you implying that the quality of Vangelis's music is beyond the limits of what we know as music? And shouldn't be judged by that "narrow" a criteria? Then we devolve into another tiresome discussion of John Cage 4'33". Or the musical value of a recording of a building demolition.

You have some really interesting questions, that I enjoy addressing. But it seems you have an agenda. That agenda being, when boiled down, that you like Vangelis, and feel he doesn't get the respect he deserves in classical music circles.

Before you ask me, like the stereotypical therapist, why I think that, let me note that you posit that an artist (presumably Vangelis) can be so good as to be literally inimitable, and have no impact on the future, that history can be wrong in ignoring certain genius, (presumably Vangelis), and that our own understanding of music may not be large enough to encompass certain musical genius (presumable Vangelis).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

i didn’t read the OP in full till now, and only after a bit of discussion on Today’s composers forum. Structurally, a lot of V’s music is non-existent, while it structurally simple in other cases like Chariots of Fire, which my bro used to blast in the house. If you take away the electronics, effects, etc. and reduce it to written music it is deficient, with almost zero development in strict musical terms. It can’t stand in the same league as the old masters, nor other 20th Century greats.

But then music has become more than just written notes in the last Century. Some simplisitic melodies can be used to great effect in ambient and film music.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> i didn't read the OP in full till now, and only after a bit of discussion on Today's composers forum. Structurally, a lot of V's music is non-existent, while it structurally simple in other cases like Chariots of Fire, which my bro used to blast in the house. If you take away the electronics, effects, etc. and reduce it to written music it is deficient, with almost zero development in strict musical terms. It can't stand in the same league as the old masters, nor other 20th Century greats


I'm not so sure about that. When you reduce Mozart or Haydn, there is nothing impressive to see or hear. It's all in the presentation.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

David OByrne said:


> I'm not so sure about that. When you reduce Mozart or Haydn, there is nothing impressive to see or hear. It's all in the presentation.


Point well taken. You can't really separate the attributes of music -- it's a package, like it or not. That said, as immediately attractive as much of Vangelis's music is, none holds my attention for more than a few minutes. For obvious reasons.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I would question the validity of everything today that is considered "classical." Much of it I don't think is worth very much, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I am a capitalist but I think capitalism has lessened the overall quality of what universities and the media call good music, or good painting, or good poetry. So, in this case, I think some of Vangelis is far, far superior to some music a certain type of person is you telling you is serious, classical music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> ...I think some of Vangelis is far, far superior to some music a certain type of person is you telling you is serious, classical music.


Come, Sir, name some names!


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2018)

JeffD said:


> I first discovered Vangelis with the opening to Blade Runner.


Great soundtrack to a great movie. I think I was first dimly aware of Aphrodite's Child's _Break_, then Vangelis' _Heaven and Hell_ which I came to like when I was at college - we used some of it for our final year drama presentation (1980).

Having said that, none of it has become a permanent feature in my record collection.



radareyes said:


> Is it possible for a composition that is structurally simplistic relative to another to be considered on (or above) par with it in terms of quality, or is complexity a prerequisite?


Yes, it is possible and no, it isn't a requirement. It's a regular debate here about what constitutes 'quality' and no winners in the debate either. Take Satie's _Petit Prelude a la Journee _and compare with Prokofiev's _Symphony No 2_. There is more to the comparison than mere complexity. They set out to do different things and, IMO, both achieve admirably.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

radareyes said:


> And in case you're interested, I think there's a good chance that you'll find this improvisation of his:


Yeah that's a great one. A prepared improv. He's possibly one of the few people in the world who could do something like that, not musically speaking, but tech-wise, it's like a one man orchestra.

I like these improvisations as well (too bad about the sound quality):




 (pure synthesizer stuff a la Blade Runner)




 (a young shirtless Vangelis having fun on organs and such)


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

JeffD said:


> The device has not been invented that can measure how little I am worried about the kind image I project to you.


Possible, if it is in fact the case that you are in actuality unconcerned with how you're coming across to me. Of course, it's also possible that you're significantly concerned with how I perceive you, but are attempting to project an image to the contrary as a result of the fact that not doing so would leave you with no choice but to confront your vulnerability (as well as the sense of disempowerment that would likely accompany it).

Can you guess which of those two possibilities I'd put my money on? 



JeffD said:


> I think you mis-understand. I was saying that fans of particular genres very often are not into other genres. A classical music fan is in not necessarily in any special position to comment on Vangelis. We don't/can't become familiar with everything. No special insight into electronic music is provided by an enthusiasm for classical music. It would be like asking baseball fans if they liked Vangelis as much as they like the world series.


The problem you bring up here is self-resolving. If there were no people who had cross-genre interests, then my thread would get no (legitimate) replies. So, to extend your analogy, it would be like asking baseball fans who were also familiar with Vangelis not how much they like him (a word that I never used or alluded to in my initial post), but whether or not they thought that their interest in him was as worthwhile as was their interest in baseball (to put it one way).

Oh, and these two sentences:


JeffD said:


> A classical music fan is in not necessarily in any special position to comment on Vangelis.





JeffD said:


> No special insight into electronic music is provided by an enthusiasm for classical music.


contradict each other. 



JeffD said:


> That is a point. History has applied more than a few unjust verdicts. On the other hand what else do we have? I mean, what criteria is there without the voice of history. This whole kind of discussion would boil down to "I like Vangelis because XXX and you should to." History provides a pretty good, though flawed, criterion, in that it is pretty objective (though its interpretation is not) and it is not something you or I can influence much.


As you yourself pointed out in your previous reply, it's possible to approach this issue from a number of different angles. We are by no means beholden only to history as our metric for assessing genius/quality.



JeffD said:


> Vangelis is so good that nobody in the next 200 years is capable of using any of his ideas effectively?


Why would the quality of Vangelis' output be the only reason why future artists wouldn't be capable of using his ideas effectively?



JeffD said:


> I guess it is possible, but I would think if history ignores someone, the explanation is more likely because that someone did not produce anything of sufficient interest to enough people.


You do realize that this position is different than the one that you initially took, right?



JeffD said:


> I figured that if such a noted musicologist as yourself were so interested in my thoughts as to single me out for response and discussion, there must be some merit to my tastes and my thoughts. Why do you care what I think?


For the time being I only care what you think in the sense that you're (presumably) a fellow human being that deserves to have a basic level of respect extended to you (something that you and I differ on, apparently). It has yet to be seen whether or not your tastes and thoughts have merit on a level other than that fundamental one.



JeffD said:


> It would preclude _my_ recognition of those innovations and _my_ recognition of the impact.


And yet you phrased it as if you were referring to people in general. I wonder why that was...? 



JeffD said:


> If not musical theory heuristcs, then what are we talking about? Are you implying that the quality of Vangelis's music is beyond the limits of what we know as music?


I'm implying that there are likely _many_ forms of music that are beyond the limits of what we know as music. We as a species haven't yet gained a clear and comprehensive understanding of all of the ways in which music might have the capacity to influence human consciousness.



JeffD said:


> And shouldn't be judged by that "narrow" a criteria? Then we devolve into another tiresome discussion of John Cage 4'33". Or the musical value of a recording of a building demolition.


Again, I can't help but notice that many of your conceptions of how things are likely to unfold are somewhat possibility-deficient.



JeffD said:


> You have some really interesting questions, that I enjoy addressing. But it seems you have an agenda. That agenda being, when boiled down, that you like Vangelis, and feel he doesn't get the respect he deserves in classical music circles. Before you ask me, like the stereotypical therapist, why I think that, let me note that you posit that an artist (presumably Vangelis) can be so good as to be literally inimitable, and have no impact on the future, that history can be wrong in ignoring certain genius, (presumably Vangelis), and that our own understanding of music may not be large enough to encompass certain musical genius (presumable Vangelis).


I really don't know what to tell you, Jeff. If you'd like I could simply deny the various ways in which you've attempted to characterize me, but my guess is that you'd just interpret that as a "you doth protest too much" (or something similar) kind of mentality, which would then cause you to become more entrenched in your belief that I do in fact have the agenda and personality traits that you've attempted to ascribe to me. To extend your earlier analogy, you are like a man who has somehow unknowingly traveled to the savannas of Africa and seen hoof prints. You don't yet know that the location you're in dramatically changes the odds that the animal that left the prints was in fact a horse.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

radareyes said:


> As I would assume at least some of the members here are aware, Vangelis is an artist who helped to pioneer the electronic music genre and is often described as having a symphonic or neo-classical style. He is also often assigned the label of "genius" or "master". It doesn't take a degree in music theory, however, to recognize that generally speaking, Vangelis' compositions don't exhibit the same degree of structural sophistication that can found in the works of most "proper" classical composers. That being the case, I would be curious to know how Vangelis is viewed by classical music aficionados -- can it truly be said that he can stand side-by-side with the luminaries of the classical world, or is he simply not in the same league?
> 
> Another broader issue that this subject brings to mind for me is that of the relationship between complexity and quality/genius. Is it possible for a composition that is structurally simplistic relative to another to be considered on (or above) par with it in terms of quality, or is complexity a prerequisite? And if it's not a prerequisite, what are the other compositional qualities that in your mind would be indicative of high quality and/or genius?





radareyes said:


> Amazing how many contributors to this thread didn't bother to actually read it prior to responding. How do I know this, you ask? Because if they had, they would almost undoubtedly have noticed that nowhere in my initial post did I mention anything about genre boundaries, nor did I express any interest in having the members of this forum confirm to me that Vangelis' output can be categorized as classical music. Rather, I asked two (three, technically, but the third was more of an adjunct to the second) entirely different questions: 1) Is Vangelis in the same league as the heavy-hitters of the classical world (which DeepR answered in terms of genres for some reason), and 2) What is the relationship between the structural complexity or sophistication of a given piece and its quality, if any?


At the risk of flogging a dead horse and incurring the wrath of radareyes (surely an obscure early Marvel comic??), I think that the question of genre is at least partly relevant to asking a "classical afficionado" their opinion on someone who composes music. If you'll bear with me while I gaze into my soul...

Although I've heard very little music by Vangelis, I was reminded by this thread that I very much enjoyed Jean-Michel Jarre's _Oxygène_ when I first heard it. This would have been around 1990 (I mean, I had heard bits before, but not the whole album) which was also the time I first came across Philip Glass, specifically in the form of _Glassworks_ and _Koyaanisqatsi_. It strikes me now that I had no hesitation in thinking (in as much as I gave any though to it) that Glass was definitely in the "classical" box, and Jarre was definitely in the "popular music" box. No doubt part of this was due to my having discovered Glass by browsing in my college library's classical LP section, whereas the Jarre came from a friend who didn't listen to classical and I already knew it as a successful (i.e., popular) album. But really there's not that much difference between those albums, especially if you try to fit them into a bigger picture, on some imaginary continuum between (for example) Beatles records and Verdi operas. Nevertheless, the distinction can exist, and it can have an effect on subsequent perceptions.

This type of somewhat arbitrary distinction manifests itself in other areas too - I don't think I'm alone in this - such as in film music, where someone like Shostakovich is definitely in the "classical" box, and therefore his film music is definitely classical too, whereas, say, John Williams, although he has composed works in the "classical" box, is best known for his film music and therefore his film music is "just film music" (I just use this as an example, and don't want to ignite any debate here!). The problem for me is that I know the distinction is arbitrary and yet I struggle to fight it. These days I find myself fretting about whether people like Nils Frahm or Max Richter are _really_ classical. I know it shouldn't matter, but still it nags at me. And the problem can manifest when people like radareyes ask for an opinion on a composer who might fall in that "grey area".

So there's that. Moving away for the moment from grey areas, if you ask me whether I think, say, Johnny Cash singing "Folsom Prison Blues" is artistically on a par with any great performance of Beethoven's "Eroica", then I'll say absolutely yes. But that yes may nevertheless be accompanied by a proviso that they don't share many technical attributes and so there's a chalk-and-cheese element to the comparison. I may well enjoy them equally, but I may enjoy them for very different reasons, and when we make comparisons like this, we can feel that such contingencies are relevant.

But if I'm asked to consider a composer who seems to occupy that grey area with classical - sharing some attributes (at least in my perception) - then I start to judge on those shared attributes while paying less attention to the attributes that they don't have in common. So that puts the grey-area composer's music at an overall disadvantage, even though it may do very well in a comparison based on the shared attributes - it's losing out in other aspects. Somewhat like the "uncanny valley" in robotics, where people are put off by a robot that's somewhat human but not human enough.

I think this phenomenon, allied with the fact that the thread's title specified _a classical perspective_, is why posters have felt that genre might be relevant.

So the answer to the first question is, no, based on admittedly limited listening that I nevertheless don't think will be altered by more extensive listening, I personally don't put Vangelis on a par with my own particular classical luminaries, or luminaries in other fields, be they popular music, dairy products, or calcium-based writing implements.

As for the second question, regular readers will know I have little time for words like "genius". But in terms of things that I really like, I don't seem to regard simplicity versus complexity as a significant factor. With that in mind, however, I would say that I don't have much appreciation for what I perceive as _extremes_ of simplicity or complexity. I suspect the same may be true for most people, although we'll vary on what we regard as the extremes.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2018)

See my responses in blue...



Nereffid said:


> Although I've heard very little music by Vangelis, I was reminded by this thread that I very much enjoyed Jean-Michel Jarre's _Oxygène_ when I first heard it. This would have been around 1990 (I mean, I had heard bits before, but not the whole album) which was also the time I first came across Philip Glass, specifically in the form of _Glassworks_ and _Koyaanisqatsi_. It strikes me now that I had no hesitation in thinking (in as much as I gave any though to it) that Glass was definitely in the "classical" box, and Jarre was definitely in the "popular music" box.
> 
> Yes, this tallies with my experience too (though I'd heard all of Oxygene back around the time it came out and only part of _Koyaanisqatsi_).
> 
> ...


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

Before I say anything else, I'd just like to thank you, Nereffid, for your considered response to my questions. Your choice to go this route puts you in a rare category as far as contributors to this thread go.

Though I don't agree with everything that you wrote, I do think that certain aspects of your analysis of the potential bearing that genre has on this thread's initial questions do serve to elucidate the issue. Specifically, I think (whether you meant to or not) that you've highlighted the (likely) fact that the impulse to take genre into consideration when attempting to assess the merit of a given artist in this kind of a context is driven primarily (if not exclusively) by various neurotic tendencies of the mind. Even in your descriptions of your experiences of some of those tendencies you use words or phrases like 'nagging', 'somewhat arbitrary', 'I know it shouldn't matter', and 'fretting', all of which seem to suggest either dysfunctional emotional states or cognitive dissonance of one kind or another. To your credit, if you were attempting to justify the inclusion of genre in the process of considering the relative value of different artists, you didn't do it in a heavy-handed way. And because of your aforementioned detailing of the nature of the factors that would likely compel a person to use genre in this way, it seems that what you've actually done (presumably inadvertently) is to demonstrate the illegitimacy of such an approach. 

With regard to the "uncanny valley" issue that you raise, though it strikes me at first glance as being a compelling and evocative analogy, upon further reflection I find it to be a bit of a stretch. This is probably due to the fact that on a day-to-day basis, we as humans are given many more opportunities to become familiarized with other humans than we are with our preferred musical genres. You've also seemed to overlook the fact that it is imminently possible to be at least roughly equally well-acquainted with a grey area artist like Vangelis and one's favorite classical composers, which it seems to me fully nullifies any influence that this phenomenon might have on the comparison process.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2018)

> Vangelis' compositions don't exhibit the same degree of structural sophistication that can found in the works of most "proper" classical composers. That being the case, I would be curious to know how Vangelis is viewed by classical music aficionados -- can it truly be said that he can stand side-by-side with the luminaries of the classical world, or is he simply not in the same league?


This question seems to imply four alternative responses, (assuming the truth of the statement "Vangelis' compositions don't exhibit the same degree of structural sophistication that can found in the works of most "proper" classical composers."):

A. Genre doesn't matter:
1. Structural sophistication in music generally is an important criteria of comparison and Vangelis doesn't measure up.
2. Structural sophistication in music generally is not an important criteria of comparison and Vangelis' measures up.

B. Genre matters:
1. Structural sophistication in classical music is an important criteria of comparison and Vangelis doesn't measure up.
2. Structural sophistication in classical music is not an important criteria of comparison and Vangelis' measures up.

I'm inclined to go with A2.


----------



## Uxbal (Dec 22, 2017)

Vangelis is a soundtrack composer and we all know that soundtracks are rarely able to stand apart from the context for which they were created.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Uxbal said:


> Vangelis is a soundtrack composer and we all know that soundtracks are rarely able to stand apart from the context for which they were created.


In the first 15 years of his solo career, only about a fifth of his works or less were soundtrack works. I'm not sure what the overall ratio is today.

Vangelis' works should be judged by this piece.





Vangelis "Beaubourg" 1978 Full Album


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

radareyes said:


> Though I don't agree with everything that you wrote, I do think that certain aspects of your analysis of the potential bearing that genre has on this thread's initial questions do serve to elucidate the issue. Specifically, I think (whether you meant to or not) that you've highlighted the (likely) fact that the impulse to take genre into consideration when attempting to assess the merit of a given artist in this kind of a context is driven primarily (if not exclusively) by various neurotic tendencies of the mind. Even in your descriptions of your experiences of some of those tendencies you use words or phrases like 'nagging', 'somewhat arbitrary', 'I know it shouldn't matter', and 'fretting', all of which seem to suggest either dysfunctional emotional states or cognitive dissonance of one kind or another. To your credit, if you were attempting to justify the inclusion of genre in the process of considering the relative value of different artists, you didn't do it in a heavy-handed way. And because of your aforementioned detailing of the nature of the factors that would likely compel a person to use genre in this way, it seems that what you've actually done (presumably inadvertently) is to demonstrate the illegitimacy of such an approach.


I should clarify that my use of words like "nagging" and "fretting" were deliberately exaggerated self-effacement and I don't believe there's anything "dysfunctional" about such thoughts in me or others. There are too many processes going on "behind the scenes" in our brains for us to fully understand how we come to conscious decisions, and the fact that arbitrary, misleading, or supposedly irrelevant factors contribute to how we ultimately feel about things is characteristic of our brains being _functional_.
I wasn't trying to "justify" the factoring of genre, or claim "legitimacy"; just saying that it's often if not always going to be lurking somewhere and needs to be taken into account.



radareyes said:


> You've also seemed to overlook the fact that it is imminently possible to be at least roughly equally well-acquainted with a grey area artist like Vangelis and one's favorite classical composers, which it seems to me fully nullifies any influence that this phenomenon might have on the comparison process.


That's a reasonable point about familiarity, but I think that such familiarity might nevertheless be overridden by the complicating factors associated with our tendency to categorise things. Macleod in his response to my "uncanny valley" point captured that aspect well (and, to the extent that I can have an opinion on music I haven't heard much of, I'm inclined to agree with his assessment).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> This question seems to imply four alternative responses, (assuming the truth of the statement "Vangelis' compositions don't exhibit the same degree of structural sophistication that can found in the works of most "proper" classical composers."):
> 
> A. Genre doesn't matter:
> 1. Structural sophistication in music generally is an important criteria of comparison and Vangelis doesn't measure up.
> ...


i think you set up the logic well, even though I would go with A1. Structure is important in stand alone music, which is why a lot of film music can't stand apart from the film. John Barry's Dances with Wolves works in the movie, but by itself, it is repetitive and lacking in any development. For a standout movie soundtrack, I found The Lord of the Rings original cartoon version by Leonard Rosenman (not the Howard Shore one) works as stand alone music.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

regenmusic said:


> I would question the validity of everything today that is considered "classical." Much of it I don't think is worth very much, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I am a capitalist but I think capitalism has lessened the overall quality of what universities and the media call good music, or good painting, or good poetry. So, in this case, I think some of Vangelis is far, far superior to some music a certain type of person is you telling you is serious, classical music.


I would agree to this extent. It is difficult, I think, for me to see the merit in a lot of music that a lot of knowledgeable people keep telling me is good. I suspend my judgement, (depending on the source of the recommendation) until I become more familiar. The advantages of being naive and not claiming any professional responsibility for my opinions.

And further, I can see an argument where capitalism and the market often "selects" for attributes antithetical to art. Its not a comfortable feeling, but yea, it will take some thought to sort out.

I would definitely say, from experience, that a lot of Vangelis specific pieces impact me more deeply than a lot of other specific pieces of music, classical included. FWIW.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> This question seems to imply four alternative responses, (assuming the truth of the statement "Vangelis' compositions don't exhibit the same degree of structural sophistication that can found in the works of most "proper" classical composers."):
> 
> A. Genre doesn't matter:
> 1. Structural sophistication in music generally is an important criteria of comparison and Vangelis doesn't measure up.
> ...


A breakdown that would be reasonably good if it weren't for the fact that it either has a core component that's redundant or only accounts for one of potentially many criteria for determining the ultimate merit of a given artist's body of work, depending on what you were attempting to say. If when you say that Vangelis does/doesn't measure up you're talking about the overall quality of his output, then you're vastly oversimplifying the issue for the simple reason that degree of structural sophistication is far from the only factor that could potentially play a role in making that determination (and if this was what you were trying to say, then you've also neglected to include the other possibility combinations). If on the other hand, you simply meant that he measures up/doesn't measure up as far as the technical attributes of his compositions are concerned, then you're unnecessarily restating something that was established in my initial post (as well as in your framing of this breakdown).


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

regenmusic said:


> In the first 15 years of his solo career, only about a fifth of his works or less were soundtrack works. I'm not sure what the overall ratio is today.


The updated figure would be just under a third, though apparently he has more unreleased material than released material, the majority of which I'm assuming is non-soundtrack.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

radareyes said:


> An interesting perspective, though one not in alignment with many of the world's psychological schools of thought. Are you able to provide any kind of a justification for your belief that there's nothing dysfunctional about the aforementioned kinds of thoughts?


Should have been clearer: _I don't believe there's anything "dysfunctional" about such thoughts in me or others_... in the context of discussions about the relevance of genre to whether we share some random person on the Internet's assessment of Vangelis.

Out of curiosity, do you think there is any chance that any of us will come up with an opinion that isn't the same as yours but has been arrived at by means that you find acceptable?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

A number of off topic posts have been removed.

The thread is temporarily closed while we consider what to do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thread re-opened.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Amazing thread. I suppose the best and only course of action left is for the OP to get in touch with Vangelis himself and ask the question. 
It seems from interviews Vangelis sees himself as something apart from what is considered "classical" and rather more like a person who just 'gives birth' to music in a sort of experiential way. 

A great deal of his music doesn't follow the forms and structure of classical music, but then there are others whose music also breaks down these forms, yet they are seen as belonging to the world of 'classical' music.

Why does he have to be considered from a "a classical viewpoint" at all? Does it afford Vangelis more or less status? Classical music doesn't have to be the yardstick for measuring everything one enjoys listening to.

Final analysis: who cares?


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Amazing thread. I suppose the best and only course of action left is for the OP to get in touch with Vangelis himself and ask the question.
> It seems from interviews Vangelis sees himself as something apart from what is considered "classical" and rather more like a person who just 'gives birth' to music in a sort of experiential way.
> 
> A great deal of his music doesn't follow the forms and structure of classical music, but then there are others whose music also breaks down these forms, yet they are seen as belonging to the world of 'classical' music.
> ...


And you read that he had to be considered from a classical viewpoint…where, now?



eugeneonagain said:


> Final analysis: who cares?


Well, think about it this way: if I hadn't cared about the question in the first place, I likely wouldn't have created this thread, meaning of course that you would have been denied the "amazing" experience of reading it. That being the case, it would appear that even if you don't at present care about the questions posed in this thread's initial post, it might be a good idea if you were to allow for possibility of others doing so.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

radareyes said:


> And you read that he had to be considered from a classical viewpoint…where, now?


In the title where you wrote: "Vangelis from a Classical perspective". Unless that now means discussing Vangelis from some other perspective? In which case you might want to revise the title.

My advice to you is to leave the goalposts in one position so that people know where to shoot.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2018)

Apparently, my post that I was not going to contribute again was regarded as 'off-topic' and deleted, so I can come back!

I'd just like to post again, in case readers missed it, that a search for Vangelis on a reputable classical music website gives a full return. Presto Classical at least categorise him as classical.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> In the title where you wrote: "Vangelis from a Classical perspective". Unless that now means discussing Vangelis from some other perspective? In which case you might want to revise the title.
> 
> My advice to you is to leave the goalposts in one position so that people know where to shoot.


Oh I have, eugeneonagain -- you just don't have very good aim.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

radareyes said:


> Oh I have, eugeneonagain -- you just don't have very good aim.


No you haven't. You might think that adding that daft smiley face at end of every reply to everyone softens the passive-aggressive tone, but it doesn't. It also doesn't work with me.

You asked a question and was dissatisfied with 99.9% of the answers and still are dissatisfied. If you're so sure of your own view there's never any point in recruiting the opinions of others.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> No you haven't.


Oh? How so?



eugeneonagain said:


> You might think that adding that daft smiley face at end of every reply to everyone softens the passive-aggressive tone, but it doesn't. It also doesn't work with me.


Could it be possible that I'm using smiley faces for a reason other than that which you've attempted to describe here?



eugeneonagain said:


> You asked a question and was dissatisfied with 99.9% of the answers and still are dissatisfied. If you're so sure of your own view there's never any point in recruiting the opinions of others.


And what view might that be?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

The attempt at a Socratic method is failing badly. You seem to have nothing to say and even when it's identified you deny it and turn into another empty question. 

Go and listen to your Vangelis jingles.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> The attempt at a Socratic method is failing badly.


On the contrary, eugeneonagain: it's revealed very clearly to me, as well as to any even vaguely astute readers of this exchange, that instead of attempting to have an honest dialogue with a person that you disagree with, you would prefer to attempt to act as if the mere fact that you've stated something somehow makes it true. That, eugene, is one of the lowest-level forms of argumentation that it's possible to use.



eugeneonagain said:


> You seem to have nothing to say and even when it's identified you deny it and turn into another empty question.


Careful eugene: your lack of conviction in your position is showing. 

Which is, of course, a good thing -- it means that even though you're currently mired in ignorance, the truth is still lurking somewhere deep beneath the surface. 



eugeneonagain said:


> Go and listen to your Vangelis jingles.


I'm sorry that you were too threatened by my approach to interacting with you to engage with me in a respectful way, eugene -- I really am. Best of luck to you with the "real life" challenges that you're no doubt facing right now.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Legend in your own lunch-hour.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Legend in your own lunch-hour.


Though I know that they look similar in that their both modern technologies with graphical user interfaces, you're in actuality looking at the talk classical forums right now, not the note section of your smart phone.

I'm pleased to see that you've starting doing personal affirmations though, eugene -- I'm told that for some people, they can really work.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

radareyes said:


> Though I know that they look similar in that *their* (no sir, *they're*) both modern technologies with graphical user interfaces, you're in actuality looking at the talk classical forums right now, not the note section of your smart phone.
> 
> I'm pleased to see that you've starting doing personal affirmations though, eugene -- I'm told that for some people, they can really work.


I don't have a smartphone.


----------



## radareyes (Nov 23, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> No sir, they're


Congratulations, eugene: that's the first accurate thing you've said all conversation long.



eugeneonagain said:


> I don't have a smartphone.


Ah, well it's a good thing that the emoji I used after referencing your non-existent smart phone makes it essentially certain beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone who has even the most basic level of social intelligence that I was being entirely satirical, then, isn't it?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The thread is temporarily closed.


----------

