# A Classical Mind



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

I think this is what the "metal is today's classical music" people are trying to say.

There are musicians who classical types would only ever describe as bound to the "popular realm", but who are far more sonically and thematically adventurous than you would first believe.

I'm talking about 20th and 21st century composers and songwriters who have done away with the notion of writing songs for the purposes of either singles or albums. Their music has extended duration, explores many areas in instrumentation, musical emotion, lyrics, and a lot of other things. It's music that can be terrifying, glorious, mournful, humorous, or whatever else they want it to be.

I call your attention to George Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue. I don't think there is anyone on this website that would question the validity of that piece's status as one of the most significant works of music of the 20th century, but at the time it was written, there were skeptics within the classical realm who didn't believe that such a piece was possible, or, once written, legitimate. George Gershwin had set out to write a piece of "classical music" using "jazz materials", to prove to the naysayers that jazz could be just as epic and thrilling as classical music. In the opinion of many, including mine, he succeeded uproariously, and over the rest of the 20th century has forged itself as one of the all-time favourite concert pieces in America.

Now, I think to myself, what's the matter with other musicians doing the same thing with their own styles of music? Gershwin proved that jazz can do what classical does, only with its own methods, so why can't other genres. Why is there a barrier between jazz and all the new things that followed? Haven't we been able to learn from our mistakes and realize that it is down to the individual composer, and not the genre he has been shoehorned into that makes a piece or work what it is?

I now call your attention to three more composers: Mike Oldfield, Roger Waters, and Mikael Åkerfeldt.

Mike Oldfield achieved prominence with his very first release, *Tubular Bells*, an entirely instrumental work released in 1973 to great acclaim. In another thread that I posted on this very forum, I declared it a masterpiece, yet I had replies by individuals who believed they had the right to point out the "truth" that it IN FACT wasn't a masterpiece, and that it was IN FACT too repetitive and cheap-sounding. To which standards are you measuring this work? You can't compare this to classical music in the same way as you would a modern work for orchestra or string quartet. Oldfield envisioned a 48-minute ethereal instrumental classical-minded rock suite, and he has accomplished it.

Roger Waters, songwriter for Pink Floyd, had started to feel disillusioned with the band and his fans, and this inspired him to write an 80-minute fictional musical narrative, *The Wall* which deals with issues that he himself was facing at the time of its writing. It's a bold and epic work, encompassing many different aspects of the human psyche and using many different musical elements to add to the majestic whole. It is a classical opera with orchestra and electric guitar blended to tell a story that no other style of music could ever hope to convey with such power.

Mikael Åkerfeldt joined the band Eruption in the late 1980s, and when that band folded, formed Opeth along with a couple other former members of Eruption. From the very start they decided to not be just another death metal band in a myriad of other death metal bands in Sweden at the time. They had already decided, long before any signing or album release was on the horizon, that they would meld heavy with light, tense with peaceful, guttural with smooth, and their songs (they still called them that) would be "long, long songs". Obviously inspired by something more than the death metal around him, Åkerfeldt has created a style of music to thwart all expectations. Death metal with emotion and soul, progressive rock with a new dark side, classical music with heavily distorted electric guitars. Their very first release, *Orchid*, was even then a showcase of a very progressed composer.

These three composers are of a very special breed of classical composer. They are the ones who have decided to embrace their influences, but who have also taken it upon themselves to forward their art and their music to levels never before witnessed by their peers. People hesitate to praise or pan their music because they don't understand it. I mentioned Gershwin's *Rhapsody In Blue*earlier to shed light on the matter, and to show that there really isn't much difference between the minds of Åkerfeldt, Gershwin and Beethoven. I'm not even asking for confirmation this time. I have listened to these musicians for many years and there is no longer any doubt in my mind.

_*Tubular Bells*_, *The Wall* and *Orchid* are rare examples of "classical music" that use "rock materials", just as *Rhapsody In Blue* is "classical music" that uses "jazz materials". They are all products of classical minds with their own specific set of influences.

Mike Oldfield's *Tubular Bells*:





Roger Waters's *The Trial* (from *The Wall*):





Mikael Åkerfeldt's *In The Mist She Was Standing* (from *Orchid*, with Opeth):





Thoughts?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Sure, but there are other composers out there who have a far greater understanding of music and exhibit this to a greater degree. Also, there are composers who are just composers - as opposed to not death metal but 'progressive death metal'. 

The truth is (and I do know these artists, ive seen opeth live twice), no matter how conceptually experimental and complex their ideas are - they dont always have the expertise to pull off a truly incredible piece of music.

Of course thats subjective.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Sure, but there are other composers out there who have a far greater understanding of music and exhibit this to a greater degree. Also, there are composers who are just composers - as opposed to not death metal but 'progressive death metal'.


A far greater understanding of music in what way?



> The truth is (and I do know these artists, ive seen opeth live twice), no matter how conceptually experimental and complex their ideas are - they dont always have the expertise to pull off a truly incredible piece of music.
> 
> Of course thats subjective.


Of course it is, but that's not what I'm arguing.  I have a friend who is also a big fan of those composers that I mentioned, and for the same reasons, but he doesn't enjoy orchestral music. He prefers the sound of the rock band to the orchestra, and has always gravitated towards making music in that style. This is not to say that he dismisses orchestral music as inferior; he respects it, but chooses not to listen to it.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Thoughts?


Sure:

Gershwin was guy who wanted to write American music just like composers like Mussorgsky wrote Russian music or Dvorak - Czech. In country with so embrional and unclear culture he had not much choice. He decided to build American art music on jazz as there was not much other music that would be clearly American. I read this act of Gershwin as attempt to put jazz in place of folk music that inspired European national composers which actually makes some sense to me as jazz evolved from quasi-folk music of black slaves in America before slavery was abolished.

People that you write about did something rather contrary. They tried to draw from estabilished classical music into theirs which was, all in all, popular music. And that is not result of searching, as it was in case of Gershwin, because there is no logic behind such theory, but of rising ambitions of musicians that started to perform pop music and it was too late to get back - I used to read about such musicians - members of Pink Floyd were playing R&B and rock n' roll as teenagers.

And the matter of quality still remains. I know a guy who knows almost everything about these musical areas and he used to say "when Waters and others like him are coming out with their most ambitious projects trying to get closer to classical music they seem to me as little children who put some artificial hair on their chins and pretend to be adults".


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Aramis said:


> And the matter of quality still remains. I know a guy who knows almost everything about these musical areas and he used to say "when Waters and others like him are coming out with their most ambitious projects trying to get closer to classical music they seem to me as little children who put some artificial hair on their chins and pretend to be adults".


An apt metaphor, indeed.
Music _can_ be very simple. But at its highest level, it's immensely complex. Of course, most singer/songwriters are paddling in the shallows of the toddler pool. Fooling about on guitars when you are a teenager and writing songs about your adolescent angst is fine for three minute ditties, but it's no training for for the Olympic 1500m freestyle. Nearly all the great pre-WWII composers studied music theory to within an inch of their lives. Paul McCartney doesn't even read music. How is he going to compose a 40-minute work that doesn't just sound like an elongated TV commercial? Can't be done.
You wouldn't expect someone who's just played with meccano to build a formula 1 car, or some Lego afficionado to construct a stone cathedral.
So it is with music...
cheers,
G


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Music is art, not technology.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Glaliraha said:


> Music is art, not technology.


Oh. Because something's 'creative' it doesn't require education or study? These 'gifted' singer-songwriters just pour out their compositions directly from their own heart and soul? Perhaps they pick up the rudiments of composition just by jamming with colleagues as stoned as they are.
Really.
Interesting that you don't think the construction of a cathedral is more than technology. Architecture is creative too, but you're usually required to do plenty of study before you can practise.
[analogy]Building designs by non-architects are as banal and unimaginitive as songs by untrained composers...[/analogy]
G


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

"Long, long songs" isn't unheard of in metal - many metal and rock bands did it way before Opeth. Venom had the nearly 20 min At War With Satan, Iron Maiden had the 13 min "Rime of the Ancient Mariner," Helloween had "helloween" and "Keeper of the Seven Keys" etc etc (btw - a *much* more deserving band than Opeth imo), even Burzum had some 10+ minute songs and predate the Opeth. And then there's Sweden's own Bathory who had more than just a few.

You talk of death metal in Sweden like it's the standard cookie cutter stuff of the US (cannible corpse, deicide, etc etc). Bands like At The Gates, Dark Tranquility, In Flames where hardly anything like we (the US) were doing - there's a reason they're credited with creating "melodic death metal."

So in THAT light, Opeth is hardly the pioneer you make them out to be. They're a product of the times, maybe they did explore a bit of a different direction than others, but the true credit should go to those who took the *actual* drastic steps (like At The Gates, Dark Tranquility etc - the pioneers of emphasizing melody and song writing within Death Metal).


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Glaliraha said:


> A far greater understanding of music in what way?
> 
> Of course it is, but that's not what I'm arguing.  I have a friend who is also a big fan of those composers that I mentioned, and for the same reasons, but he doesn't enjoy orchestral music. He prefers the sound of the rock band to the orchestra, and has always gravitated towards making music in that style. This is not to say that he dismisses orchestral music as inferior; he respects it, but chooses not to listen to it.


A far greater understanding of music in two ways.
First - theory, yes you can roll your eyes and go blah blah, but harmonic and contrapuntal theory exists for a reason. They are a set of properties of sound that have been exploited to provide the best possible use in music. The more you know about sound, the relationship between different pitches, timbres etc... The more you know about music, and youll have the tools to create succesful art.

Second - this is the more subtle sense. The touch for drama, surprise, restraint etc... that separates the skilled from the genius and truly gifted

Now thats fine, but is he aware that the orchestra isnt the only thing available to composers? Composers write for what suits their needs, and for hundreds of years they had nothing better, but dont forget all those instruments solo and in various chamber combinations, the voice, the piano, a choir, folk instruments too.
Since electric instruments have been invented, they too have been used in music (lets call it art music), unfortunately the impopularity of much modern music has shielded this music from the public eye. If it wasnt for 'art' composers such as Xenakis and Stockhausen then Daft Punk nor Burzum would be able to use those synthesisers. It is rather silly for a composer to confine himself to an orchestra or a rock band, rather the true artist would use any medium that best suits his needs.

BTW, have you heard Mark Anthony Turnage's concerto for electric guitar?


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

GraemeG said:


> Oh. Because something's 'creative' it doesn't require education or study? These 'gifted' singer-songwriters just pour out their compositions directly from their own heart and soul? Perhaps they pick up the rudiments of composition just by jamming with colleagues as stoned as they are.
> Really.
> Interesting that you don't think the construction of a cathedral is more than technology. Architecture is creative too, but you're usually required to do plenty of study before you can practise.
> [analogy]Building designs by non-architects are as banal and unimaginitive as songs by untrained composers...[/analogy]
> G


Of course music requires education and study. Composers like the ones I mentioned in my first post are learned in other areas and write music in different ways to Bartok and Shostakovich. This does not prevent them from creating and executing music as epic or powerful as Beethoven.

On the cathedral analogy, you mentioned that it's like someone skilled only in lego attempting to build a stone cathedral. This is not the same as someone skilled only in BUILDING with lego attempting to DESIGN a stone cathedral. They have the capacity to envision a stone cathedral, and there is no physical barrier preventing them from coming up with the Sistine Chapel.

But would you scoff if someone managed to find a way to construct a cathedral out of lego blocks that would not fall down for centuries?



David58117 said:


> "Long, long songs" isn't unheard of in metal - many metal and rock bands did it way before Opeth. Venom had the nearly 20 min At War With Satan, Iron Maiden had the 13 min "Rime of the Ancient Mariner," Helloween had "helloween" and "Keeper of the Seven Keys" etc etc (btw - a *much* more deserving band than Opeth imo), even Burzum had some 10+ minute songs and predate the Opeth. And then there's Sweden's own Bathory who had more than just a few.
> 
> You talk of death metal in Sweden like it's the standard cookie cutter stuff of the US (cannible corpse, deicide, etc etc). Bands like At The Gates, Dark Tranquility, In Flames where hardly anything like we (the US) were doing - there's a reason they're credited with creating "melodic death metal."
> 
> So in THAT light, Opeth is hardly the pioneer you make them out to be. They're a product of the times, maybe they did explore a bit of a different direction than others, but the true credit should go to those who took the *actual* drastic steps (like At The Gates, Dark Tranquility etc - the pioneers of emphasizing melody and song writing within Death Metal).


I wasn't trying to make Opeth seem like a pioneer. I wasn't even trying to differentiate them entirely from other bands. A lot of bands had the mentality to break out of the scene that spawned them, including the ones you mentioned. I'm trying to bring forward the notion of a "classical mind" making the music different from popular music, and would most likely include Dark Tranquility and In Flames (although I haven't listened to very much of their music).



emiellucifuge said:


> A far greater understanding of music in two ways.
> First - theory, yes you can roll your eyes and go blah blah, but harmonic and contrapuntal theory exists for a reason. They are a set of properties of sound that have been exploited to provide the best possible use in music. The more you know about sound, the relationship between different pitches, timbres etc... The more you know about music, and youll have the tools to create succesful art.
> 
> Second - this is the more subtle sense. The touch for drama, surprise, restraint etc... that separates the skilled from the genius and truly gifted


The first is music theory, the second is music. A far greater understanding of music implies the second one, not the first.

And anyway, guitar distortion and drum patterns are music theories on their own.



> Now thats fine, but is he aware that the orchestra isnt the only thing available to composers? Composers write for what suits their needs, and for hundreds of years they had nothing better, but dont forget all those instruments solo and in various chamber combinations, the voice, the piano, a choir, folk instruments too.
> Since electric instruments have been invented, they too have been used in music (lets call it art music), unfortunately the impopularity of much modern music has shielded this music from the public eye. If it wasnt for 'art' composers such as Xenakis and Stockhausen then Daft Punk nor Burzum would be able to use those synthesisers. It is rather silly for a composer to confine himself to an orchestra or a rock band, rather the true artist would use any medium that best suits his needs.


I mentioned my friend and his attitude towards music as a means of contrasting between his (healthy) view on music and the views of others who believe that what they think is fact because of history.



> BTW, have you heard Mark Anthony Turnage's concerto for electric guitar?


No, I haven't. I'll give it a listen at some point.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Glaliraha said:


> I wasn't trying to make Opeth seem like a pioneer. I wasn't even trying to differentiate them entirely from other bands. A lot of bands had the mentality to break out of the scene that spawned them, including the ones you mentioned. I'm trying to bring forward the notion of a "classical mind" making the music different from popular music, and would most likely include Dark Tranquility and In Flames (although I haven't listened to very much of their music).


Then why use them as an example? Of course they're not doing "popular music" - they're a metal band! Going back to your analogy, it's as if "Rhapsody in Blue" had already been written (by At The Gates, Bathory, In flames, Dark Tranquility, Venom etc) - Opeth didn't "create" it, they just added their voice to it. You're praising the wrong band...

Anyway, alot of what drives metal is youthful angst...they were teenagers, talented yes and with a good sense of melody, but they're far from "the struggle with God" that Beethoven undertook on his walks.

I'd support you in saying there's a common thread among them, being musicians, people who expressed their soul through their art, but how do you compare "The Jester Race" to Beethoven's 9th?


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

David58117 said:


> Then why use them as an example? Of course they're not doing "popular music" - they're a metal band! Going back to your analogy, it's as if "Rhapsody in Blue" had already been written (by At The Gates, Bathory, In flames, Dark Tranquility, Venom etc) - Opeth didn't "create" it, they just added their voice to it. You're praising the wrong band...


Because Mikael Åkerfeldt is an example of the type of classically-minded composer that I was talking about, much like Mike Oldfield and Roger Waters. I'm also thinking of his later works with Opeth too, and having listened to and loved it for many years I place him with that certain type of composer whose intentions are "classical", but who doesn't have a mind or taste for the sound or traditional instrumentation of classical music.



> Anyway, alot of what drives metal is youthful angst...they were teenagers, talented yes and with a good sense of melody, but they're far from "the struggle with God" that Beethoven undertook on his walks.


OK. I'm not trying to make blanket statements. Beethoven was indeed troubled, and a musical genius, and that reflects in the way his music affects people and his continued popularity into the 21st century. A similar statement can be made about Peter Sellers with regards to his acting, particularly in comedy.



> I'd support you in saying there's a common thread among them, being musicians, people who expressed their soul through their art, but how do you compare "The Jester Race" to Beethoven's 9th?


I'd compare those two works on an individual basis, and it would be based on how I hear and react to them. Between those two particular works, I prefer Beethoven's 9th. If you had asked me to compare Beethoven's 9th with Opeth's *Morningrise*, I'd opt for the latter.


----------



## charismajc (Nov 14, 2010)

Roger Waters and Paul McCartney may not have been trained in music theory (or may not even read music), but they are great musicians. I think most would agree that what they lack in theory knowledge, they more than compensate for in many other ways. 

Who is the greater musician? A professor from a prestigious music program who composes complex classical music and has a small audience, mostly among fellow academicians. Or a Roger Waters? I would argue that in a different life, Roger Waters could have obtained the level of training that the professor achieved and gone on to write music more acceptable to some of the folks on this thread. However, I have my doubts that our anonymous professor friend could have ever written the music that Roger Waters did.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Glaliraha said:


> Of course music requires education and study. Composers like the ones I mentioned in my first post are learned in other areas and write music in different ways to Bartok and Shostakovich. This does not prevent them from creating and executing music as epic or powerful as Beethoven.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry. No amount of life experience or broad general education qualifies you to write music. Not serving in a war, suffering cancer, bearing the death of a child; they may be overwhelming emotional experiences, but they are not substitutes for musical training itself; you will lack the fundamental skills to successfully translate emotion and meaning from one form to the other.



> On the cathedral analogy, you mentioned that it's like someone skilled only in lego attempting to build a stone cathedral. This is not the same as someone skilled only in BUILDING with lego attempting to DESIGN a stone cathedral. They have the capacity to envision a stone cathedral, and there is no physical barrier preventing them from coming up with the Sistine Chapel.
> But would you scoff if someone managed to find a way to construct a cathedral out of lego blocks that would not fall down for centuries?


Look it's only an analogy. The imagination (vision) alone is not enough. Without the requisite technical skills the imaginary vision is simply something that cannot be accessed. The reason for the continued popularity of Beethoven (as referenced later in your post) is not because his imagination or emotions were different to anyone else's, but because he had the skills to express through music that which so many of us feel, but lack the vocabulary (literal, musical) to express. We _*all*_ can envisage that unique stone cathedral, but we're physically incapable of constructing it in a way that can be viewed by others.

We _would_ build something out of Lego. And being plastic it would weather, and become fragile with exposure to UV rays, and brittle with winter cold, and would crumble to pieces, and future generations would wonder what it was all about. Because the skills we had were so limited, and all we were capable of was manipulating the pre-formed plastic blocks. It simply *cannot* last centuries, because at its very core it lacks the integrity - the structure, the quality - that would permit it to do so. Whereas Beethoven has carved musical monuments from eternal components, which speak to everyone for all time, not because his vision was so unique (precisely the opposite) but because he had the skills and tools to translate into universal language that which we all feel.
cheers,
GG


----------



## Comus (Sep 20, 2010)

I am a fan of progressive rock and a little prog/tech metal. Yes, many of these bands possess great skill in manipulating their respective instruments and some display an advanced knowledge of scales, chords, etc, but I must argue that they are missing something found in classical music: form and logic. You will often hear pop forms in this music. Verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge (even if this bridge is 15 minutes long and improvised, it's still just a bridge), chorus, close. I understand classical music contains simple forms, but that is a symptom of diversity, not a lack thereof. Yes arranged Close to the Edge in sonata form, which adds tremendously to the song's coherence. Most bands ignore this and fall back on simpler methods despite the superficial complexity of the individual parts.


----------

