# Can you connect with non-classical music as much as you can with classical?



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

For those passionate about classical, are you able to connect with non-classical music as much as you do with classical music? In my experience, I can't connect with my favorite bands as much as I used to before discovering classical music. The Smiths were (still are, I suppose) my favorite band, but there's definitely not the same connection that there used to be.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Actually, I have. I don't spend much time with rock or jazz, but recently I've bumped into some things which have gotten under my skin. But the problem with rock is, it's so basic, after about ten listens I start to get tired of the song. With classical, after ten listens I'm beginning to understand it.


----------



## Lovemylute (Jul 17, 2014)

No. There is no comparison: for me, classical music is in an entirely different realm from non-classical, it embodies a beauty and a depth beyond any other music I have ever experienced, and it touches me so much more deeply and profoundly. I never get bored with classical music, but with non-classical, although I do enjoy some of it from time to time, it grows wearisome very quickly.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Only Tull............


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think they are similar but different types of sensations. The stimulation I get from classical is more sustaining on some levels, but in other areas certain non-classical music gives me that 'quick fix' or rush of the senses, I don't typically encounter in the same way with classical. Its like caffeine or sugar I guess. I wouldn't want to live on just caffeine and sugar, but I'm not sure I could ever give up either entirely. Basically if I'm in the mood for rock or jazz, then classical won't really cut it for me and vice versa. 

I am glad I can listen to both. 

Finally I agree with manxfeeder's point in an over-all sense, but would add there are classical pieces that I get sick of after hearing once or twice and rock songs that virtually never seem to wear out for me, so it just depends on the piece/song.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Manxfeeder said:


> Actually, I have. I don't spend much time with rock or jazz, but recently I've bumped into some things which have gotten under my skin. But the problem with rock is, it's so basic, after about ten listens I start to get tired of the song. With classical, after ten listens I'm beginning to understand it.


What this guy said is the way I feel, well pretty close to it. I must admit I love to sing and I'm something of a mimic so I enjoy singing different people... my voice is my only instrument these days. I mean don't get me wrong 90% of the time its absolute music for me but when I'm in a singing mood I reach for the non CM variety... {my favorite non-absolute music to pop on it the Beatles, Wings, Elton John (my favorite to sing), Billy Joel, David Bowie, Simon & Garfunkel, Queen, Steely Dan, more recently the Fleet Foxes, some Radiohead (I enjoy all Radiohead but not all of it is really singable), the Flaming Lips.... Then there's the classic stuff, Cole porter, Irving Berlin, Frank Sinatra (the only true rival to Elton John for me) Nat King Cole, Tom Jones, Bobby Vinton, Wayne Newton.. }

I do have special mention my latest discovery, Grizzly Bear... particularly the album "Veckatimest". I happen to think it the coolest band I've heard in the last 20 years in terms of sound and complexity (there a great singing band as well).. I urge anyone here unfamiliar with Grizzly Bear and you like absolute music to go listen to "Veckatimest" ... I'd be curious to see what you guys think.. sorry to tangent off the OP.. I hope you all forgive my rambling on there.. 

After reviewing this post it may seem as if I prefer non classical but I assure you I live and breath the absolute variety.. Once my voice runs out I'm sure I'll retire all my singing music.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> I do have special mention my latest discovery, Grizzly Bear... particularly the album "Veckatimest". I happen to think it the coolest band I've heard in the last 20 years in terms of sound and complexity (there a great singing band as well).. I urge anyone here unfamiliar with Grizzly Bear and you like absolute music to go listen to "Veckatimest" ... I'd be curious to see what you guys think.. sorry to tangent off the OP.. I hope you all forgive my rambling on there..


I actually love Grizzly Bear, they're my favorite current band and Veckatimest is their best album imo, my favorite song of theirs is "Knife" off of "Yellow House". Ed Droste has an amazing voice.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I can connect with the great majority of non-classical music as much as I can connect with lukewarm Coca-Cola.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> For those passionate about classical, are you able to connect with non-classical music as much as you do with classical music? In my experience, I can't connect with my favorite bands as much as I used to before discovering classical music. The Smiths were (still are, I suppose) my favorite band, but there's definitely not the same connection that there used to be.


I used to. When I was a teenager, I was really more into the "top 40" stuff, at the expense of classical, but as I've "matured", classical has definitely won out.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

European/Western Classical, Jazz, Indian, Japanese, and Gamelan classical are the musics I connect with most. Other than that? Not much. As another poster said, rock music is simply too basic and therefore, boring and mindnumbing. You wanna hear the greatest rock band ever assembled? Listen to Miles' fusion recordings; primal, ferocious and yet endlessly sophisticated and complex. Rock only does one thing well: attitude.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I actually love Grizzly Bear, they're my favorite current band and Veckatimest is their best album imo, my favorite song of theirs is "Knife" off of "Yellow House". Ed Droste has an amazing voice.


Brother you're preaching to the choir here... I was so amazed to stumble on to this band that actually excites me like I haven't been in ages (at least for a rock band or whatever genre you'd consider them... but whatever they are all I can say is its close to genius for being non-absolute).


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Yes, but that's because my non-classical only includes Bill Evans and other jazz, Gamelan, and other traditional music from other cultures. You would have to pay me for listening to rock music to be honest


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I started with classical first, in very early childhood.

In my working days just post conservatory, I played my share of musicals and revues with a lot of songs from musicals / and or 'The Great American Songbook.' I still just "don't do well, at all," with the majority of a certain style within the genre of 'musical,' but gained a quick and non-grudging admiration for some of those songwriters and their material. Harold Arlen, Richard Rogers (especially when he collaborated with lyricist Lorenz Hart), Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Duke Ellington, Frank Loesser, among many many others. (even this Wikipedia list is 'short,' by far...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Songbook#Songwriters_and_songs
A good number of those songs, on the musical side of them alone (I never pay attention to text the first few listens, but only thereafter) are profoundly good writing, melodic and harmonic.

But, as a few have already said in this thread, after a while they just do not sustain interest as much via repetition and time, though some I would say are 'as worthy of a listener's time and attention' as are some of Schubert's lieder.

Other genres, folk, the more folk-oriented popular (western) have 'moved me,' but again with not as much depth or sustaining power as classical.

Jazz has sometimes pulled my attention (I am literally in awe over any good jazz singer) but Jazz is highly modal, so it does not take long for me to get weary of what I hear as a perpetual vagueness.

Some cross-genres, folk-rock from the late 60's and 70's caught my ear and respect... but it too, has 'faded' in impact over not so much time.

Like others, the most sustaining of my interest non-classical is 'traditional' or 'classical' music of other cultures, Gamelon, some Japanese and Chinese musics, and of those it is often the music from their older 'classical' traditions.

Top 40, pop / rock has but very rarely held my attention for more than the length of time a song takes to run, if that... ergo, 'all that' is just not talkin' to me, I guess. (The 'rock 'n' roll for me, in my early teens, that I played at top volume was more like Stravinsky _Le Sacre du Printemps_, Messiaen _Turangalila,_ Prokofiev _Piano Concerto No. 2,_ Bartok _Piano Concertos 1 & 2_-- yeah, I was a heavy duty dweeb, then


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I enjoy jazz about as much as I enjoy classical music. If I had to choose, I'd take classical, but fortunately I don't have to choose. 

I also enjoy rock, blues, folk, and the other popular forms or music, but I'd enjoy them more if the music were more complex and diverse.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Just like Barack Obama said: Yes, I can!

I don't care what genre the music is, just catch my attention for god's sake.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I think what it is maybe that we're getting at here, is that serious art music with established traditions behind it, tends to be more intellectually stimulating and often more emotionally stimulating. What I've observed a lot is that with the most "mature" themes you find in a lot of modern music, it's just sophomoric and often solipsistic. Of course, music can be fun and that's all some people need from it, but when you get into the habit of expecting a lot more, expecting to actually grow intellectually and emotionally, modern stuff just doesn't typically cut it.

But half of the issue is, I think, the way the modern music industry works. Clearly things are a lot different now than the old patron system, and clearly music in the West used to be class oriented. Many of us simply wouldn't have had the opportunity to hear Schubert, Mahler, Mozart, Salieri, Rossini, etc. And before then the home of Western art music was the church. If you wanted to hear Perotin, Schutz, Fux, Buxtehude, Bach, Ockeghem, Telemann, Josquin de Prez, or Kuhnau, you would have gone to church. And if you were into court music maybe you were able to get in to see Rameau, Locatelli, or Leonarda. There are tons and tons of composers we never would have had the opportunity to enjoy.

And the other benefit to all of our opportunities, is that if we can spend the time to find lesser known jewels like Kuhnau or Porpora, then we can certainly find the good music that people are making today. There are plenty of modern groups that I like, it just takes a little effort to find them.

Not to mention that if we step out of our "ethnocentric bubble" and begin to learn about the other music traditions out there, many of us might very well find a whole lot of music we can connect with outside of "classical music". As for me, it's not uncommon at all to find me listening to Bach and a surbahar or sitar player next:










Like another has already mentioned, there is Gamelan, classical Japanese, even chant and throat singing. Not to mention that people have been making music for a very long time. Ever heard someone play a clawhammer banjo, or a lyre? It's like going into the world's biggest candy store and asking why the gummy worm section isn't as good as the butterscotch section. There's hundreds more, why stick with just butterscotch? You can find candy just as "buttery" somewhere else. There are some ragas I've listened to probably hundreds of times, and I didn't even realize Hindustani Classical Music was so great until my thirties.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Yes, but that's because my non-classical only includes Bill Evans and other jazz, Gamelan, and other traditional music from other cultures. You would have to pay me for listening to rock music to be honest


Hey, didn't I see you started a thread about Pink Floyd here a while back? :devil:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

tdc said:


> Hey, didn't I see you started a thread about Pink Floyd here a while back? :devil:


Yeah, someone paid me to do it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> Hey, didn't I see you started a thread about Pink Floyd here a while back? :devil:


Would the combination of Pink Flloyd and Tangerine Dream make a composite pop-rock pastel nightmare?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Would the combination of Pink Flloyd and Tangerine Dream make a composite pop-rock pastel nightmare?


I don't know, I've never been able to get into Tangerine Dream much. I like a lot of Pink Floyd stuff but I prefer their original guitarist. Gilmour's playing always struck me as just a touch too bluesy for what is going on in the other instruments.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

Yes, if it's Pat Metheny...or Frank Sinatra...


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Jazz has sometimes pulled my attention (I am literally in awe over any good jazz singer) but Jazz is highly modal, so it does not take long for me to get weary of what I hear as a perpetual vagueness.


Can you explain 'perpetual vagueness' as it pertains to modal Jazz and for that matter, Indian (Hindustani) Classical music (also highly modal)?


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I also started with classical first, so I don't know far my connections with non-classical music could've gone, but the fact is that they often do not go as far as my connections with classical do. I connect with the genres in different ways, but the non-classical music I like is often so different from classical (things like dubstep and Japanese techno-pop) that I can't really connect with them on the same level at all.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I certainly listen to "classical" music more than any other... for the simple reason that it has a far longer history than most of what might be deemed "popular" musical forms... whether jazz, blues, bluegrass, folk, pop, rock, etc... Still I regularly listen to virtually every genre. While a good deal of "classical" music is more complex than a majority of popular or "non-classical" musical forms... this is not always true... nor is complexity a standard requirement of great art. There are rather simple popular works within the "classical" umbrella that I greatly love, and simple, basic ("raw"?) works of blues, bluegrass or rock that grab me more than many far more complex and multi-layered classical works.

Listening to music I can appreciate a variety ranging from jazz...



... to blues, bluegrass/country, and rock/pop...



... as well as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven...



... just as I can appreciate a broad spectrum of art as well.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

@StlukesguildOhio or anyone else who might know, who painted the picture on the bottom right? The gentlemen with his back turned to us, on top of the rock. It looks very familiar, I know I've seen it somewhere.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Caspar David Friedrich- _The Wanderer above the Mists_ 1817-18. He was THE great German painter of the Romantic era.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Caspar David Friedrich- _The Wanderer above the Mists_ 1817-18. He was THE great German painter of the Romantic era.


Thank you so much, it's a lovely painting. It evokes the same feelings that I get when looking at "Christina's World" by Andrew Wyeth. I guess there's just something about looking at someone's back as they gaze into the distance, there's a mysteriousness to it, it's sad and optimistic at the same time if that makes any sense.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Of course. Why wouldn't I be able to?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Regardless of genre ... if the music is good, I can connect.

Of course, it's sort of a conundrum, because I only connect if the music is good.

What non-classical examples can I provide? Miles's _Kind of Blue _album has music that reaches me as profoundly as classical. So too, Joe Henderson blowing on "Canyon Lady" or Bill Evans playing "Peace Piece". Maybe the rock band Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4" because of Terry Kath's heroic guitar solo. And several songs by Jobim ....


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_Christina's World_ takes on a greater sense of pathos when you know that Christina... or rather Anna Christina Olson... Wyeth's neighbor... suffered from polio and was paralyzed from the waist down... making the her home in the distance an epic struggle to reach.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Can you explain 'perpetual vagueness' as it pertains to modal Jazz and for that matter, Indian (Hindustani) Classical music (also highly modal)?


I hear the same about a lot of music like Perotin. It seems that even within the classical music community we do have things that we are predisposed to think, likely through conditioning, when we listen to modal music or other types of music that don't fit the orthodox tonal scheme. Imo, there isn't fundamentally much difference between a listener finding it hard to get Schnittke, or finding it hard to get Perotin.

And it is no different with me, I have to admit that I have a hard time at first when I am exposed to music that works on such a different scheme. I think one of the biggest misconceptions we run across when we observe this in ourselves and others, is when one says to one's self "this sounds just formulaic, where's the emotion". That is because we are conditioned to see certain things in the music as signifying emotion, and especially notable are the typical methods of conveying strong emotion in music. Usually we can recognize the former, even mistakenly, yet when we can't recognize the latter we just say it's unemotional and/or vague.

As interesting as that whole can o' worms is, I have digressed a bit. If I had to think of more popular music (you'll laugh at me because this is about as "pop" as I get any more) that I connect with, it would have to be depression era bluegrass and country like _We're In The Jailhouse Now_, _Big Rock Candy Mountain_, and jumping further ahead in time just a bit _The Great Speckled Bird_. This music resonates right down in my core because that's my family I'm looking at, and these are the things my Papa would sing to me as a child. It's not hard at all for me to envision it when I listen to the music, I can see family pictures of the old tar paper shack my Papa lived in, pictures of my grandfather, aunts and uncles going to church at First Baptist or noodling (hand fishing) at the delta.

Yeah, I like to listen to Jimi Hendrix, Styx, Guns n' Roses, and all of that but if you give me an old bluegrass album I'll probably stick that in first.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

When I discover a rock band that is excessive, wild and experimental, like totally out in orbit and beyond definition, I connect instantly  but I find that it takes me about a day for the kick to wear off. It's a real letdown and I just can't seem to find any that keeps me hooked. The rock structure is too straightforward to keep my interest for long.

With classical, there are pieces I connect with right away and others that take me a while, but, in both cases, I don't seem to be able to exhaust them. After countless listens, I still feel that there is more for me to absorb. I don't know if I could ever comprehend a classical piece completely. I can become familiar with the melody, or I know when a certain instrument comes in, etc., but to completely comprehend how it is put together, how and why it works as it does... that I can only dream of. This fascinates me, that I have so much enjoyment, endless enjoyment, from music that I am not even sure that I will ever completely understand  It makes me want to take music lessons. But I don't think I ever want to end up like PetrB, who is jaded by nearly every composer and masterpiece


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> Regardless of genre ... if the music is good, I can connect.
> 
> Of course, it's sort of a conundrum, because I only connect if the music is good.
> 
> What non-classical examples can I provide? Miles's _Kind of Blue _album has music that reaches me as profoundly as classical. So too, Joe Henderson blowing on "Canyon Lady" or Bill Evans playing "Peace Piece". Maybe the rock band Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4" because of Terry Kath's heroic guitar solo. And several songs by Jobim ....


Jazz and Classical are on the same wavelength; they are both complex and highly refined Art musics. This has nothing to do with your comment but I often have the sense that Classical listeners believe Jazz to be an inferior form. That's quite rich when one considers that the great Stravinsky's stabs at Jazz amounted to nothing more than mere borrowings; pastiche. Jazz is America's true classical music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _Christina's World_ takes on a greater sense of pathos when you know that Christina... or rather Anna Christina Olson... Wyeth's neighbor... suffered from polio and was paralyzed from the waist down... making the her home in the distance an epic struggle to reach.


Another Wyeth painting -- I read that there was originally a sleeping dog outside the window, which got changed into that cut log with the strangely menacing sharp shards sticking out...


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> For those passionate about classical, are you able to connect with non-classical music as much as you do with classical music?


Yes, definitely able to, though have been focusing on classical much of the time over the past two years. It serves, and has served, a different purpose from most of the classical I've consumed: I don't listen to Debussy for what I get out of Depeche Mode or Brian Eno; I don't listen to Radiohead or Fleet Foxes for what I get out of Shostakovich.

It's like having different friends or groups of friends; you don't have to reject one to embrace the other.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Yes.....................


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Yes, I usually have a slight preference for one over the other for a few months, and then it swings back again to the reverse.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Not even close. My companion loves American Idol type programs. They bore me and put me to sleep.

Once in a while I'll put on a Paul Simon or Miles Davis CD and while those are good, I lapse right back to classical for 99% of my listening pleasure. Nothing else compares.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I tend to think of each genre of music as something completely different, and I get something different from each one. I like apples and oranges and pineapples and grapes and cherries. The fact that cherries are my favorite pie filling, doesn't mean that cherries are better than apples as a fruit.

What was the subject again? (I think I just made myself hungry)


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Absolutely!

Jazz and jazz-fusion, and some forms of progressive (rock) music (the avant-garde mostly) connect with me for most of the same reasons I listen to classical (.

The all have a high level of musicianship and (usually) complexity.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Yes, but if I was forced to choose I'd place classical music at the top of all music that I connect with.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes.

For me, connection is not affected by genres, or other such labels. What I consider to connect with me has nothing to do with technicalities or techniques. Like some others have intimated, I enjoy curry and I enjoy ice cream, you can't compare; curry is rubbish ice cream and ice cream is rubbish curry.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

gog said:


> Yes.
> 
> For me, connection is not affected by genres, or other such labels. What I consider to connect with me has nothing to do with technicalities or techniques. Like some others have intimated, I enjoy curry and I enjoy ice cream, you can't compare; curry is rubbish ice cream and ice cream is rubbish curry.


I see what you're saying but I think you're turning it into semantics by pigeonholing this into mere "genres". I don't see it that way, and to go off of what you said about the ice cream and curry. I could look at it differently, for instance, I would much rather eat meat and potatoes daily than I would a candy bar or popcorn. Yet, popcorn is rubbish meat/potatoes and meat/potatoes is rubbish popcorn. I feel that one option is more satisfying, more filling, substantial and important to my being in more than one way. I can equate this to music, while I love rock and some pop, I don't connect with it as much as I do with classical because I find classical to be more satisfying and substantial yet every now and then I'll listen to some pop and rock, just like every now and then, I'll splurge on a candy bar or some popcorn.

I don't want to insinuate that one is better than the other because that would be foolish and shortsighted, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I mainly wanted to see if there's the same level of connection that goes into listening to classical and other types of music. For me and what seems to be a lot of other people, the connection is there but it definitely doesn't run as deeply.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

My interest in music started with pop and rock music, so I can connect with it without problems. And while there's no comparison in terms of structure or harmony, it must be noted that in rock there's a lot more fantasy in terms of sounds, effects, even the use of voice. Simply put, while I can recognize that a lot of pop is crap, I think that the best of it offers something that simply is completely different and that you can't find in any form in classical music, especially considering the experimental side of rock music. I don't know anything similar to what musicians like The Residents, or Monoshock, or Captain Beefheart or Nuno Canavarro (just to mention few examples) did.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I see what you're saying, but my honest answer is that a really moving piece of non-classical music can get me to as high a level of "exaltation" as a really moving piece of classical music, if I'm in the emotional place internally to respond to it.

It's possible that no secular, non-classical piece of music has hit me quite as hard as Brahms' "All Flesh Is Grass" from AGR, or the Alto Rhapsody, or the end of the first movement of the First Piano Concerto, but I can think of a couple that have come close. , when I've been in the mood for them.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I take the view that it's all just music. One of my favourite forms of musical expression is the song, that most timeless blending of words and music. Many of us revere Schubert and Schumann as the unsurpassed masters of songwriting on the grounds that modern songwriters are supposedly incapable of recreating the same level of depth and poignancy. The fact is that many of the classic "art songs" are as simple as a single page of music repeated four times. Simple but effective. As others have already pointed out, complexity need not be the measure of depth. If I were to ask myself who are the successors to Schubert, who are the great songwriters of today, I certainly wouldn't be looking at the "classical" tradition.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Winterreisender said:


> I take the view that it's all just music. One of my favourite forms of musical expression is the song, that most timeless blending of words and music. Many of us revere Schubert and Schumann as the unsurpassed masters of songwriting on the grounds that modern songwriters are supposedly incapable of recreating the same level of depth and poignancy. The fact is that many of the classic "art songs" are as simple as a single page of music repeated four times. Simple but effective. As others have already pointed out, complexity need not be the measure of depth. If I were to ask myself who are the successors to Schubert, who are the great songwriters of today, I certainly wouldn't be looking at the "classical" tradition.


Right, depth is measured by poignancy and theme. Modern songwriters writing solipsistic garbage isn't poignant. But of course there are great songwriters still around, too. Regarding your jab at Schubert's successors in the classical condition, you're entitled to your opinion and you make a good point, but personally I like Faure, Liszt, Debussy, Sorabji, and a few others. Faure in particular, wrote beautiful songs.






And here's something you don't see modern songwriters do:


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I actually love Grizzly Bear, they're my favorite current band and Veckatimest is their best album imo, my favorite song of theirs is "Knife" off of "Yellow House". Ed Droste has an amazing voice.


I'm going to post something on this thread about jazz a bit later. But it's very good to find others around here who enjoy Grizzly Bear. I saw them in concert a few years ago, right after the release of _Veckatimest_. I've enjoyed both _Yellow House_ and _Shield_ immensely.

A while ago, I started a thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/31956-best-indie-rock-2000-a.html. It didn't seem to get much traction -- and I was beginning to think that I was one of the only ones around here who enjoyed recent indie rock. Please consider posting favorites over there.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> Right, depth is measured by poignancy and theme. Modern songwriters writing solipsistic garbage isn't poignant. But of course there are great songwriters still around, too. Regarding your jab at Schubert's successors in the classical condition, you're entitled to your opinion and you make a good point, but personally I like Faure, Liszt, Debussy, Sorabji, and a few others. Faure in particular, wrote beautiful songs.


I was actually talking about "great songwriters of today." The ones you mention are all dead. In my opinion, the best living songwriters are not "classical."


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I love many other types of music and think I always will
Classical just happens to get the lions share of my time and enjoyment


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Winterreisender said:


> I was actually talking about "great songwriters of today." The ones you mention are all dead. In my opinion, the best living songwriters are not "classical."


I guess I don't really know enough about living classical songwriters to form much of an opinion. I'll have to drudge up some examples but you definitely have a point there. However, one songwriter I would recommend is the owner of this site.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> For me and what seems to be a lot of other people, the connection is there but it definitely doesn't run as deeply.


I see a number of posters who wish to express the view that the music they prefer is somehow more worthy. Can't they just settle at its being the one they prefer? Or is the 'deepness' a measure of its worth (and, by implication, their worth)?

[add] To avoid being guilty of the thing I have accused others here of doing (referring to things nameless posters do without giving an example)...here are some examples.



> When I was a teenager, I was really more into the "top 40" stuff, at the expense of classical, but as I've "matured", classical has definitely won out





> As another poster said, rock music is simply too basic and therefore, boring and mindnumbing.





> serious art music with established traditions behind it, tends to be more intellectually stimulating and often more emotionally stimulating. What I've observed a lot is that with the most "mature" themes you find in a lot of modern music, it's just sophomoric and often solipsistic. Of course, music can be fun and that's all some people need from it, but when you get into the habit of expecting a lot more, expecting to actually grow intellectually and emotionally, modern stuff just doesn't typically cut it.


I don't find that the music I like to listen to 'lacks' anything in terms of what it offers me emotionally and intellectually. If music has helped me to 'grow' (the jury's still out on that one) then classical and pop/rock have both contributed.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I did notice a difference. My favorite bands don't seem as significant anymore, their music is not as enduring, I can't listen as much. In classical I can listen to the same work many times and it retains is wonder and beauty, where non-classical is much easier to tire of.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> Jazz and jazz-fusion, and some forms of progressive (rock) music (the avant-garde mostly) connect with me for most of the same reasons I listen to classical (.
> 
> The all have a high level of musicianship and (usually) complexity.


I don't think in order to enjoy music, it has to have a high level of musicianship or complexity. There is often a visceral reaction to music which is why I'll post my favorite quote about music from Beethoven again, _"Music is a higher revelation than philosophy."_

I can't stand heavy metal, but I know people who are so moved by it, and I love that part of it, and every other form of music because somebody, somewhere is moved by it regardless if I like it or not.

I enjoy the banality and rawness of George Thoroughgood's _"Bad to the Bone"_ or ZZ Top's _"Got Me Under Pressure,"_ and when I'm on a job site and it's 4pm and I'm tired from a long day and it comes on my iPod, it gets me going, gives me that rush of energy to get me through the final hour(s). It doesn't diminish my overwhelming emotion listening the Michael Murray play Bach's Passacaglia & Fugue.

How one can listen to Ray LaMontagne's "Empty" and not be moved by the lyrics and the beautiful haunting melody is beyond me. I was born and raised in NJ. Listening to older Springsteen songs that I grew up with sends me back with so many vivid memories and emotions.

So, to the OP, I absolutely can "connect" with non-classical as much as classical. Would I put it up there musicality wise? No absolutely not, but music doesn't have to be in it's highest form in order to "connect."

I also think what's at play here, is some people don't want to think of themselves as "shallow" or "not deep" in their musical taste, so they will convince themselves that they don't like a "lower" form of music, and deprive themselves of some potentially great enjoyment.

V


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

The sense of connection has endured for longer for me for non classical, simply because it has been a longer period in my life. What turned me onto music about 40 years ago was a piece of non classical music that still moves me as much. Other stuff has of course come and gone. No doubt there'll be classical stuff in the future that I bond with as much. Early days yet....but it won't be Philip Glass...!


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I see a number of posters who wish to express the view that the music they prefer is somehow more worthy. Can't they just settle at its being the one they prefer? Or is the 'deepness' a measure of its worth (and, by implication, their worth)?


A couple things, I never said "worthy" or "deepness" or even implied it, why are you choosing to ignore what else I said and assume that I'm saying something else? I said this:

_"I don't want to insinuate that one is better than the other because that would be foolish and shortsighted, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I mainly wanted to see if there's the same level of connection that goes into listening to classical and other types of music. For me and what seems to be a lot of other people, the connection is there but it definitely doesn't run as deeply."_

I wanted to see if people had the *same level of connection* they do with other types of music as they do with classical, I'm not sure how that even leads one to assume that I'm saying one is more "worthy" or "deep" than the other. They're different types of music out there and it stands to reason that different things would spark different emotions and reactions from people and would in turn change the level of connection to be had. For me, *personally*, I happen to connect with classical more, on the whole. That's not to say I don't love other types of music as I've already stated and never claimed them to be less worthy. Just because I find one type of music more satisfying or substantial *to me* doesn't devalue or diminish the other types of music I listen to. They fill *different roles* of my listening experience and one provides a stronger connection.

I also have a stronger connection with drama-genre movies than I do with I do with pure action or Sci-fi movies, yet I'll be struck by lightning if _Blade Runner_ and _The Fifth Element_ aren't my two favorite movies.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> A couple things, I never said "worthy" or "deepness" or even implied it, why are you choosing to ignore what else I said and assume that I'm saying something else? I said this:


I think, though I'm now not sure, that none of the three examples I cited are yours (except the one at the top of my post). I was pointing out that _some_ posters _are_ telling us that the connection has something to do with the value or worth of the music itself. I may be overinterpreting what they have posted, of course.

You did, however, leave yourself open to misinterpretation since you did use the word 'deeply' in your post #43.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I think, though I'm now not sure, that none of the three examples I cited are yours (except the one at the top of my post). I was pointing out that _some_ posters _are_ telling us that the connection has something to do with the value or worth of the music itself. I may be overinterpreting what they have posted, of course.
> 
> You did, however, leave yourself open to misinterpretation since you did use the word 'deeply' in your post #43.


It was just a misunderstanding, then. No harm done, but to the use of the word "deeply", I would maintain that saying that "_my connection runs more deeply with classical music_" is very different from saying classical music is _deeper (or more worthy)_ than X music. Either way, it was just a misunderstanding.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

I love music: a great deal of classical music and a great deal of jazz. Some rock. Some folk. Some country & bluegrass.

That said, I definitely listen to jazz and classical more than anything else. WAY more. I like that both of these genres have a sense of tradition and continuity. Both genres can be "art music" with musicians who aspire to create lasting music. When I think about _profound musical experiences_ that I've had -- whether it's live music or recordings -- I'd say that most of them involved jazz or classical music. So I guess jazz and classical are the genres that are most important to me, and I don't make much distinction between the two in terms of enjoyment. (Even if there are some _significant_ differences between them.)

If I were to estimate how my record collection would break down by genre, I'd guess that jazz constitutes about 45% of my music collection. Classical is roughly 40%. Everything else makes up the remaining 15%.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Varick said:


> I don't think in order to enjoy music, it has to have a high level of musicianship or complexity. There is often a visceral reaction to music which is why I'll post my favorite quote about music from Beethoven again, _"Music is a higher revelation than philosophy."_


Maybe that's the case for Beethoven, but I'm not Beethoven. People really do seem to like equating their own frame of reference with everyone else and then making grandiose statements. For me, philosophical ruminations are what gets me going when I listen to music. Learning is like a drug, and constantly asking myself new and interesting questions is like a drug. And it has been very life enriching. That doesn't mean I'm some smarty pants who thinks he's part of an elite, it's just the way my head works.

There are things that I find very exciting, like this Hebrew grammar book I bought last week, that I'm sure would bore many others to tears. It gets me going, while I simply don't get as much out of a purely visceral reaction to something like "Bad to the Bone".



> I also think what's at play here, is some people don't want to think of themselves as "shallow" or "not deep" in their musical taste, so they will convince themselves that they don't like a "lower" form of music, and deprive themselves of some potentially great enjoyment.


It's not even necessarily that some music is lower, it just isn't "me". Am I making any sense here?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> It was just a misunderstanding, then. No harm done, but to the use of the word "deeply", I would maintain that saying that "_my connection runs more deeply with classical music_" is very different from saying classical music is _deeper (or more worthy)_ than X music. Either way, it was just a misunderstanding.


Look, we don't have to be so tentative about drawing a line somewhere either. Obviously Schubert's Standchen is deeper than _What Does The Fox Say_ or any Tenacious D song. Music doesn't have to be deep to be entertaining, and a lot of it doesn't purport to be deep in the first place. Different writers have different goals, and I don't think it puts anyone down or makes a different kind of listener with different tastes stupid that many composers from the classical tradition obviously had something more substantial to say than a lot of people who write popular music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Look, we don't have to be so tentative about drawing a line somewhere either. Obviously Schubert's Standchen is deeper than _What Does The Fox Say_ or any Tenacious D song. Music doesn't have to be deep to be entertaining, and a lot of it doesn't purport to be deep in the first place. Different writers have different goals, and I don't think it puts anyone down or makes a different kind of listener with different tastes stupid that many composers from the classical tradition obviously had something more substantial to say than a lot of people who write popular music.


"Deeper"? What does that mean, exactly? I don't know the piece, but I can't think of one piece of classical music that is 'deeper' than an equally meritorious pop song. (There's dross in all genres of music, isn't there?)


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

These days I find it hard to connect with my non-classical records _as music._ As expression, I may or may not succeed in establishing a connection.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> "Deeper"? What does that mean, exactly? I don't know the piece, but I can't think of one piece of classical music that is 'deeper' than an equally meritorious pop song. (There's dross in all genres of music, isn't there?)


By "deeper" I mean there is serious or intellectually provocative subject matter, or simply emotional maturity. What I didn't mean to say was that there aren't equally meritorious songs being made. What I meant to say is that a lot of music is made now purely for fun. In Bach's time church was the main place you went to listen to music, and as such the themes were typically serious, the tone of his works worshipful, jubilant, somber, etc.

That's not to say that you don't have plenty of examples of music like Mozart's musical joke. What I am pointing out is the trend today towards not so serious or downright emotionally immature music. And by emotionally immature I don't mean sappy, that's just fine with me if someone is into that. By emotionally immature I am referring to System of a Down whining about everything or rap artists talking about degrading garbage (maybe you wouldn't believe it coming from me, but I have found some exceptional music in rap). There are entire genres today that just don't purport to have very high minded goals, and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't mean anything about the people who listen or the people who make the music.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Varick said:


> I don't think in order to enjoy music, it has to have a high level of musicianship or complexity. There is often a visceral reaction to music which is why I'll post my favorite quote about music from Beethoven again, _"Music is a higher revelation than philosophy."_


I agree.

I was just posting what I look for in music, and what moves me.



> I enjoy the banality and rawness of George Thoroughgood's _"Bad to the Bone"_ or ZZ Top's _"Got Me Under Pressure,"_ and when I'm on a job site and it's 4pm and I'm tired from a long day and it comes on my iPod, it gets me going, gives me that rush of energy to get me through the final hour(s). It doesn't diminish my overwhelming emotion listening the Michael Murray play Bach's Passacaglia & Fugue.


I understand that there is an attraction to this kind of music, just not for me.



> How one can listen to Ray LaMontagne's "Empty" and not be moved by the lyrics and the beautiful haunting melody is beyond me. I was born and raised in NJ. Listening to older Springsteen songs that I grew up with sends me back with so many vivid memories and emotions.


"Empty" is a nice song. But I can list music in several different genres, with equally haunting melodies, moving lyrics, and still have the other things I look for in music in addition.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Varick said:


> How one can listen to Ray LaMontagne's "Empty" and not be moved by the lyrics and the beautiful haunting melody is beyond me. I was born and raised in NJ. Listening to older Springsteen songs that I grew up with sends me back with so many vivid memories and emotions.
> V


A pet peeve of mine: Lyrics are not music.

Sure, they are completely tied in with music as part of a song, but really, so many 'poignantly moving' songs, tune and harmony alone, would barely cut it for the listener who, lyrics taken into account, is so moved by 'the song.'

"Listening to older Springsteen songs that I grew up with sends me back with so many vivid memories and emotions." 
They do so because they are from and about the locale from whence you came, redolent with memories of growing up and your youthful era; ergo, when listening from a position of being older, there is an inevitable induced nostalgia about "the time when we were young.'

That is the other extremely important and salient element of pop music. Its goal, generally, is to be about the immediate present, like the news, with no intent, usually, to set out to be more universal, or unbound from time and place. One cannot criticize pop for that, when it is indeed a primary intent.

But what if those Springsteen tunes were exactly the same musical content, but the composer not 'from your area,' the lyrics not about that same time and place? Not that any of that should be separated, but if they were, that leads back to my belief 'the music' -- on its own -- is far less powerful or evocative than many think it to be, the content of the lyrics being a tremendous percent of what moves people about those songs in the first place.

I think that 'freshness date' factor is also why, in this thread, we hear from a number of people about what is a regularly occurring phenomenon -- when the listener gets older, and adds classical to their understanding and pleasure, the pop music which so moved them in their youth seems to have paled, diminished in its effectiveness... that 'freshness date' has expired.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> "Listening to older Springsteen songs that I grew up with sends me back with so many vivid memories and emotions."
> They do so because they are from and about the locale from whence you came, redolent with memories of growing up and your youthful era; ergo, when listening from a position of being older, there is an inevitable induced nostalgia about "the time when we were young.'


That explains why the music played on popular radio stations is so vapid and the selection so limited. Because many who grew up listening to those songs keep coming back to them--like a dog returns to its vomit (Pv 26:11). I look back on stuff I liked in the 1970s and not much of it is appealing anymore. I am thankful that I broke free of the top 40 mold. (Nothing against Springsteen by the way.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I like jazz same as I do classical, and I also listen to other genres like rock, country, pop. I think there are differences but also connections and overlaps in my taste between these genres too.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

PetrB said:


> A pet peeve of mine: Lyrics are not music.
> 
> Sure, they are completely tied in with music as part of a song, but really, so many 'poignantly moving' songs, tune and harmony alone, would barely cut it for the listener who, lyrics taken into account, is so moved by 'the song.'
> 
> ...


There's an element of truth in this, but as you rightly say, since the lyrics are not the music, there is more about 'pop' (how narrowly are we defining this, by the way?) music than you allow. For me, it has retained a longevity of value that suggests a longer 'freshness date'. No, I am not 'moved' by some pop in the same way as when I first heard it, but the same goes for classical too. And as some TCers are at pains to point out, being 'moved' by music is not its only value.

Just a brief response to your pet peeve. Unless one has been brought up to listen to music in an emotional (and physical) vacuum, most people's experience of music is 'complete' - the words, the music, the day you first heard it, how tired or elated you were, whether you were 5 or 15 or 35, alone or in company, just falling in love or out of it, etc. It's obvious that many listeners cannot separate the context for listening from the music itself, which then carries forward a haze or wreath of non-musical associations that nevertheless remains part of the experience, and can do for some time.

The fact that millions have listened to Springsteen - in different times, places and circumstances - and still say that his music is powerful etc etc rather suggests that it has a greater longevity and universality than you think.

Not for everyone of course: he doesn't do it for me!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Unless one has been brought up to listen to music *in an emotional (and physical) vacuum* It seems pretty clear you do not like 'the dismissal' of all context but the music,
> *most people's experience of music is 'complete' - the words, the music, the day you first heard it, how tired or elated you were, whether you were 5 or 15 or 35, alone or in company, just falling in love or out of it, etc. It's obvious that many listeners cannot separate the context for listening from the music itself, which then carries forward a haze or wreath of non-musical associations that nevertheless remains part of the experience, and can do for some time.*
> This is why it is so necessary to separate those influences before earnestly discussing classical music with any sort of level playing field, and some set of "how we understand each other" when discussing it. If any seem to think that also 'dismisses' the worth of their personal experiences, they are really not ready to play in an adult discussion -- those things, for each of us who has them (who does not?) being 'all about us' vs. all about the issue at hand.
> 
> ...


-------------------------------------------


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

PetrB said:


> _This is why it is so necessary to separate those influences before earnestly discussing classical music with any sort of level playing field, and some set of "how we understand each other" when discussing it. _


Is it really _necessary_? Why? [add] It would be necessary if the OP involved an attempt at objective comparison between genres. But we are being asked specifically about our personal connection with music - though as I already posted, some can't resist a jibe against pop (see florestan #67).



PetrB said:


> _If any seem to think that also 'dismisses' the worth of their personal experiences, they are really not ready to play in an adult discussion_


I agree, but I don't think that's happening here.



PetrB said:


> _Some folk music has proved itself as 'speaking to many over many generations. AND, we are at a very interesting juncture: pop music is now recorded, in formats supposedly worthy of archival longevity. Instead of dying off, or going to a point of obscurity where 100 people know of song X from 1920, now there are millions of copies. That availability, taken into the future, will be most interesting in what it demonstrates of the response of later generations._


I agree. Pity you and I aren't likely to be around to discuss whether The Beatles or Bruce Springsteen have achieved comparable longevity (still listened to by 3% of the population after 200 years!)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

PB:
This is why it is so necessary to separate those influences before earnestly discussing classical music with any sort of level playing field, and some set of "how we understand each other" when discussing it.

ML: Is it really necessary? Why?

"We," as in the TC membership comprising several generations, all have the following: Radio in our home; reproducing playback equipment in our home; later, radio in the automobile, later _on our very person,_ the walkman, then disc players, then iPods, etc. Personal players with earphones, having us hearing music in contexts and circumstances unheard of by anyone much prior the mid-1900's.

Neither the composers or the public of yesteryear -- from whence so much of the music we listen to originated -- had any possibility of associating a piece of music, say, as 
_"That was playing when they announced the war on the radio / TV." 
"That was what I was listening to when dear Grandma keeled over and died while visiting me on Christmas day." 
"That was playing on the radio when I got my first kiss in the back seat of my friend's car on a double date," -- etc.

From that we get "why party X is so fond of composer Z, or piece Y, because they were going through a time of heavy depression and it helped them get through it."_ The fact is, this sort of stuff may be interesting in some other setting, with another topic of _very personal stuff_ at the center, but, for the vast bulk of the classical rep, none of it has beans to do with the music, other than for the person with their later specific associations as made possible via the technology in the latter half of the 20th century.

People greatly mistake many a biographic framework as being the thing the composer directly wanted to express.

All of the above has me wholly subscribing to the *"I don't care if he had a toothache when he wrote it,"* school of approach. Similarly, _I don't care if I had a toothache the first time I heard a work_, or first heard it as background music while getting four molars pulled and while anesthetized, or heard it when I got the news of....

None of it is of, or even about, the piece in question. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PB: If any seem to think that also 'dismisses' the worth of their personal experiences, they are really not ready to play in an adult discussion.

ML: I agree, but I don't think that's happening here.

I read a lot here much differently than you, and I suppose many others as well, then.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PB: Some folk music has proved itself as 'speaking to many over many generations. AND, we are at a very interesting juncture: pop music is now recorded, in formats supposedly worthy of archival longevity. Instead of dying off, or going to a point of obscurity where 100 people know of song X from 1920, now there are millions of copies. That availability, taken into the future, will be most interesting in what it demonstrates of the response of later generations.

ML: I agree. Pity you and I aren't likely to be around to discuss whether The Beatles or Bruce Springsteen have achieved comparable longevity (still listened to by 3% of the population after 200 years!)

 -- 'Tis a pity only if one is keen on discussing 'what will speak to the future generations,' which, even if I have an opinion on which pieces or what composers are 'strong' and may 'last,' is a speculative exercise, a sort with very little appeal to me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

PetrB said:


> PB: If any seem to think that also 'dismisses' the worth of their personal experiences, they are really not ready to play in an adult discussion.
> 
> ML: I agree, but I don't think that's happening here.
> 
> I read a lot here much differently than you, and I suppose many others as well, then.


Let's stick with what's happening in _this _thread, and ignore what often happens in other threads.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Let's stick with what's happening in _this _thread, and ignore what often happens in other threads.


Well, then, for pop music, post vast dissemination and availability just anywhere, including on the person, let's say that all those associations, how they get attached to the song, are very well known, to a point many a songwriter _plans on it._ They find the topic which will resonate as both personal, sometimes to a specific locale, or a particular class strata, and play to it -- I should add that I think a great deal of that is sincere, while a canny songwriter knows 'hooks' which are beyond just the hook in a tune.

In this thread, not to criticize the poster, the fact of Springsteen being from a locale and speaking of and about a certain socio-demographic was enough to evoke tons of nostalgia from that poster. This is a good deal of how pop music works, indeed, anytime there is 'song' and _the lyric._

If evaluating a song, say in a songwriting workshop or a general ed college course, "The history of rock n' roll," or "History of pop music,'" the evaluation would be very much about how well the music is made, the song constructed, and the lyric would also come under equal scrutiny. That scrutiny would not take into account the various nostalgic sentiments of any or all of the listeners, but would look closely at the power of that lyric to evoke sentiment. Those are two very different things. The first revolves around any number of unique personal reactions, the second focuses on the strengths, or weaknesses, and devices, within the lyric.

P.s. I don't really get, sorry, why this 'more clinical approach' is so disturbing to any who are part of a group who have literally applied for and signed up and in to a site which is, purportedly, dedicated _to discussing music!_ :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

PetrB said:


> P.s. I don't really get, sorry, why this is so disturbing to any who are part of a group who have literally applied for and signed up and in to a site which is, purportedly, dedicated _to discussing music!_ :lol:


You are entitled, of course, to your views about what should and shouldn't be posted on TC. So am I, and so is everyone else. Both you and I and others sometimes do post such views. What none of us is entitled to do is to keep insisting that all threads must be about discussing music _our way._ If you don't want to discuss whether/how/why you do or do not connect to non-classical - same as you don't want people to keep doing polls (which you still feel compelled to contribute to, if only to lament the frequency with which poll threads are started) you can discuss something else.

I too lament the fact that I made a contribution to a _discussion _about Prokofiev's _music _that, at last count, has yielded one reply. I've even started my own threads to _discuss _music - that have dried up pretty quickly. Let's face it, TCers are a mixed bunch, but not many want to _discuss _the music. _Argue_, yes, about the about-music topics especially...

But we have to live with it or go away, I suppose. Even so, I'm still having fun...how about you?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> You are entitled, of course, to your views about what should and shouldn't be posted on TC. So am I, and so is everyone else. Both you and I and others sometimes do post such views. What none of us is entitled to do is to keep insisting that all threads must be about discussing music _our way._ If you don't want to discuss whether/how/why you do or do not connect to non-classical - same as you don't want people to keep doing polls (which you still feel compelled to contribute to, if only to lament the frequency with which poll threads are started) you can discuss something else.
> 
> I too lament the fact that I made a contribution to a _discussion _about Prokofiev's _music _that, at last count, has yielded one reply. I've even started my own threads to _discuss _music - that have dried up pretty quickly. Let's face it, TCers are a mixed bunch, but not many want to _discuss _the music. _Argue_, yes, about the about-music topics especially...
> 
> But we have to live with it or go away, I suppose. Even so, I'm still having fun...how about you?


Like I suppose many here, yes, I'm still having 'fun,' and a good part of that fun is achieved, as is said in a maxim I love to disseminate as far and wide as possible, by remembering and acting upon what it says:
*"Sometimes, you've got to make your own kind of fun."*


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> For those passionate about classical, are you able to connect with non-classical music as much as you do with classical music? In my experience, I can't connect with my favorite bands as much as I used to before discovering classical music. The Smiths were (still are, I suppose) my favorite band, but there's definitely not the same connection that there used to be.


It seems only right to refer back to the OP on a long thread like this. I'm one of those that came to classical/opera in my late 20's after devouring (it seemed to me) everything rock, jazz and folk had to offer. So when I moved on to classical/opera area it consumed my listening and concert-going (excluding all previous music) for the next 15 years.

Now, thankfully, I'm rather more balanced, but I seldom go back to old rock/pop/folk (great as much of it is), instead I enjoy trying to find modern musicians/performers who are truly interested in creating music of merit and meaning. Sufjan Stevens and Joanna Newsom top the list for me, I'm appreciating the Grizzly Bear shout outs earlier in this thread. Although a mere rock band I like how they arrange in an 'orchestral' way rather than the oh-so-boring 4/4 rock style. Yellow House is such a grower.

I go to at least one music festival each summer and love to encounter so many new bands or singers. Whilst there is a sense of ephemera about much of the music... alas, so it is with life. It's good to live in the present!

(Listening to Schubert's 9th while writing this).


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Well, then, for pop music, post vast dissemination and availability just anywhere, including on the person, let's say that all those associations, how they get attached to the song, are very well known, to a point many a songwriter _plans on it._ They find the topic which will resonate as both personal, sometimes to a specific locale, or a particular class strata, and play to it -- I should add that I think a great deal of that is sincere, while a canny songwriter knows 'hooks' which are beyond just the hook in a tune.
> 
> In this thread, not to criticize the poster, the fact of Springsteen being from a locale and speaking of and about a certain socio-demographic was enough to evoke tons of nostalgia from that poster. This is a good deal of how pop music works, indeed, anytime there is 'song' and _the lyric._
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more, which is why I choose my words carefully (at least I try). I use the word "song" to express exactly that when referring to pop music, and I kept to the OP's question if I "connect." I really wouldn't be that interested in dissecting most pop songs in an academic sense except maybe some lyrics, because that the level of musicianship is rarely there in comparison to CM. I certainly wouldn't be "disturbed" by such analysis (I don't get why anyone would be disturbed by such a discussion either) but I'd much rather break down a Beethoven Symphony instead.

Great discussion gentlemen (to MacLeod as well). You two aren't as separated in view as one may think.

V


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> For those passionate about classical, are you able to connect with non-classical music as much as you do with classical music?...


Because this thread has gone through various modules, I want to return and address the OP. For myself, I would almost reverse the thread title: "Can you connect with classical music as much as you can with non-classical?" Jazz has long been my major focus. I have followed jazz quite intensely for 20 years, though my actual introduction to it goes back further, back to the late 60s, when I first discovered the music of Miles Davis, and into the early 70s when I listened to fusion. When it felt like rock was drying up around 1994 or so, I settled on jazz as my principal genre for listening and collecting. Over the years since then, I have gone through phases where my focus has sometimes been the classic jazz especially of the 50s and 60s (Miles, Coltrane, Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Joe Henderson, Andrew Hill, Bobby Hutcherson, Charles Mingus, Bill Evans, Art Blakey, etc. etc.); other times it has been contemporary jazz (Dave Douglas, Dave Holland, Brad Mehldau, William Parker, Matthew Shipp, John Abercrombie, Steve Turre, Bill Frisell, Medeski Martin & Wood, etc.). Only in the last 5 years has classical again become a regular focus of my listening and study (my introduction to classical goes back to the late 60s).

Jazz, like classical, aspires to be art music, as JACE noted earlier. Its world and aesthetic is so different from that of classical. Each performance is itself a unique composition. Jazz is not really about harmony or melody, though it often works within quite sophisticated harmonies and often has memorable melodies. At the heart of it, it's a conversation. It's a spontaneous conversation within a democracy of co-creators. The thrill of it is hearing the creation of new music right before your ears. I run across those who come at jazz with classically-trained ears and who sometimes complain about a certain harmonic "sameness" within the jazz they've run across. And there are those used to listening to rock music who don't know what to do with jazz's lack of "song" orientation, its instrumental-only character and its lack of refrains and "hooks." I try to get people new to jazz to listen to it neither as melody nor as harmonic progressions but as following this spontaneous and intricate conversation between these immensely talented and quite fearless musicians. Jazz is a high-wire act. It is easy to crash and burn in a live performance. You can't play it safe, and there's no set script. I should add that many classical listeners tend to be so harmony-oriented or so counterpoint-oriented that they tend to miss jazz's rhythmic complexities, its polyrhythms, that are part of its African inheritance (though those who accustomed to 20th-century classical often pick up on this).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Alypius said:


> ... Only in the last 5 years has classical again become a regular focus of my listening and study (my introduction to classical goes back to the late 60s).
> 
> ... At the heart of it, it's a conversation. It's a spontaneous conversation within a democracy of co-creators. The thrill of it is hearing the creation of new music right before your ears. I run across those who come at jazz with classically-trained ears and who sometimes complain about a certain harmonic "sameness" within the jazz they've run across. And there are those used to listening to rock music who don't know what to do with jazz's lack of "song" orientation, its instrumental-only character and its lack of refrains and "hooks." ...


That was an interesting post, in part because there are things I have in common with you. One is that before joining this forum 5 years ago, I had a long period of being mainly into jazz. I also came to classical earlier, I grew up with it and much other music.

As regards the conversational quality you talk of, I think that jazz may have been a factor of getting me into chamber music. Prior to 5 years ago, my experience with chamber music was less compared to now, I was mainly into orchestral (but not exclusively). I think that the small groups in jazz, the quality of intimacy and being without a leader (or at least the leader being equal more or less to the others, that democracy of ideas), has parallels with string quartets and other small scale chamber works which I really got into in recent years.

Another thing that jazz ties into is Baroque, that's the era in classical music that has a lot in common with it. Probably the most, in terms of incorporating improv, flexibility according to the size of the ensemble and leaving up to the musicians to decide things like the order of movements in some pieces. The sameness you talk about ties into this as well. There's also the tendency to arrange existing music, the arrangement in effect making the old piece into a new one. Another thing is that a lot of BAroque, like jazz, isn't written down (or as strictly notated or locked down as more recent music, for example cadenzas came to be written down in the late 18th century only). No wonder jazz musos where inspired by Baroque, especially the Europeans (eg. Claude Bolling, Jacques Louissier).

As I said in my earlier post, I think there are parallels between my listenings to various genres outside classical. If asked to name my top ten musicians across all genres, there would definitely be a handful in there of non classical musos. Its just as hard for me to choose my favourite jazz musicians as classical, and there are musicians in other genres who I admire to a large extent. Burt Bacharach for example is amongst my favourites, the classical training he received from Darius Milhaud really shines through in his songs. I think he's great, but he's not the only one whose work I love.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's not that I have any trouble "connecting" with pop music, but, in danger of being branded an elitist, I simply do not want to connect with that kind of music. Classical music is simply so much better.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

hpowders said:


> It's not that I have any trouble "connecting" with pop music, but, in danger of being branded an elitist, I simply do not want to connect with that kind of music. Classical music is simply so much better.


Well I'll not brand you an elitist, but I will contradict you. It's not 'better'.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Well I'll not brand you an elitist, but I will contradict you. It's not 'better'.


See, I will brand him an "elitist" (I still like the guy), but he is right. Classical music is "better." It doesn't make anyone better by listening to it, but it is better. Regardless, I still love it all & connect to non-classical just as much on a visceral level.

I am referring to popular (pop) music here. I have never seen any kind of structure in pop music that comes close to that which is in classical. So I do believe one can say objectively that classical is "better" music.

I can make a hamburger with all the highest quality ingredients (organic) and fresh and use master chef techniques in preparing it and such and it would be a "better" burger than say a pub or McDonalds burger. You may still prefer the McDonald's burger, but objectively "my" burger would still be "better."

V


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Varick said:


> See, I will brand him an "elitist" (I still like the guy), but he is right. Classical music is "better." It doesn't make anyone better by listening to it, but it is better. Regardless, I still love it all & connect to non-classical just as much on a visceral level.
> 
> I am referring to popular (pop) music here. I have never seen any kind of structure in pop music that comes close to that which is in classical. So I do believe one can say objectively that classical is "better" music.
> 
> ...


If 'structure' or 'ingredients' are your sole criteria, possibly so. But isn't music - of most types - about more than just one or two aspects? How about 'purpose', for example? Beethoven is rubbish to dance to - if I were to go to a disco, I'd rather dance to Disco than to Messiaen!


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> If 'structure' or 'ingredients' are your sole criteria, possibly so. But isn't music - of most types - about more than just one or two aspects? How about 'purpose', for example? Beethoven is rubbish to dance to - if I were to go to a disco, I'd rather dance to Disco than to Messiaen!


Yes, that is exactly what I mean with "better:" Structure and so forth. Whenever I hear two or more things in comparison and the question arises as "which is better?" I always start to analyze the components which makes up the object or subject of issue.

"Which do you like better?" is a completely different question with an entirely different meaning. Unfortunately many people (dare I say most?) people conflate the two and answer an objective question with a subjective answer. I see that happening here all the time.

That's why I can say *objectively* that classical music is better than pop, however, I *subjectively* connect equally (in intensity, not to be confused with "the same way") to both genres.

V


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Varick said:


> Yes, that is exactly what I mean with "better:" Structure and so forth. Whenever I hear two or more things in comparison and the question arises as "which is better?" I always start to analyze the components which makes up the object or subject of issue.
> 
> "Which do you like better?" is a completely different question with an entirely different meaning. Unfortunately many people (dare I say most?) people conflate the two and answer an objective question with a subjective answer. I see that happening here all the time.
> 
> ...


I'm not conflating. Nor am I being subjective. You can claim to say, objectively, that classical is better than pop, but you'd still have to say what criteria you are using, and the minute you get into 'structure', you come up against the problem of applying a value judgement to something that won't stick. It's like trying a magnet on aluminium.

You might of course say that classical structures tend to be more complex than pop songs - though this is not universally the case - but that doesn't make it 'better' objectively.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I wasn't referring to you specifically regarding conflation or subjectivity (or objectivity). I was just stating how I react to when I hear about comparisons in the "better" arena. If someone else doesn't interpret the situation the same way, that's fine. I was just clarifying my perspective.

I find nothing wrong with making value judgements in terms of quality of things. Some things are harder to make quality judgements about than others, and there are other things in which it is impossible. Just because relativism can (and should) be used in some cases, it shouldn't be used for everything.

It would be very difficult to give a quality value judgement of say a Beethoven Symphony vs a Mahler symphony, just like it would be difficult to give a quality value judgement on the music of Led Zepplin vs. The Who. However, it is very easy to make a quality value judgement on the music of Mahler vs the music of The Who.

What one prefers, is an entirely different subject and discussion.

V


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Varick said:


> What one prefers, is an entirely different subject and discussion.
> 
> V


I agree. But you still can't legitimately argue that, to you use your example, the music of Mahler is better, objectively, than the music of The Who. You can only argue that you believe it to be better and offer a set of subjective crteria.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Sid James said:


> That was an interesting post, in part because there are things I have in common with you. One is that before joining this forum 5 years ago, I had a long period of being mainly into jazz. I also came to classical earlier, I grew up with it and much other music.
> 
> As regards the conversational quality you talk of, I think that jazz may have been a factor of getting me into chamber music. Prior to 5 years ago, my experience with chamber music was less compared to now, I was mainly into orchestral (but not exclusively). I think that the small groups in jazz, the quality of intimacy and being without a leader (or at least the leader being equal more or less to the others, that democracy of ideas), has parallels with string quartets and other small scale chamber works which I really got into in recent years.
> 
> Another thing that jazz ties into is Baroque, that's the era in classical music that has a lot in common with it. Probably the most, in terms of incorporating improv, flexibility according to the size of the ensemble and leaving up to the musicians to decide things like the order of movements in some pieces. The sameness you talk about ties into this as well. There's also the tendency to arrange existing music, the arrangement in effect making the old piece into a new one. Another thing is that a lot of BAroque, like jazz, isn't written down (or as strictly notated or locked down as more recent music, for example cadenzas came to be written down in the late 18th century only). No wonder jazz musos where inspired by Baroque, especially the Europeans (eg. Claude Bolling, Jacques Louissier)....


Thanks. We share a lot of common ground on this. There are for me strong links between what I enjoy in jazz and what I enjoy in classical. Your mention of the link between chamber music and the average size of most working jazz ensembles (most are trios, quartets, and quintets) is one that I have noted to my friends who listen to both. Probably my favorite genre of classical music is the string quartet. With just 4 instruments, each playing just a single line -- well, it enables me to follow in my mind each line of the music -- hearing it in and of itself, hearing it in dialogue with each other line, hearing the polyphony and the counterpoint with clarity. That same acoustic-and-mental approach shapes how I listen to and enjoy small jazz groups. I also enjoy piano trios in jazz just as I enjoy piano trios (and quartets and quintets) in classical. The majority of 19th-century music that I enjoy is such chamber works.

Your mention of the linkage of jazz and baroque is another I've noticed for myself. I love baroque, both to listen to it and to play it. Actually baroque was the first form of classical music I came to enjoy. Back in the late 60s, I stumbled upon one of these old Time/Life LP collections, titled something like "Music of the Baroque". Early music of all sorts attracted me from the very beginning, initially baroque, but then I moved backwards to medieval and Renaissance music. This was in the early days of the Early Music movement (e.g. David Munrow and the Early Music Consort of London). I've appreciated how that movement understood the need to improvise, and bring improvisation -- and rhythmic energy -- into their performances.

A third linkage is jazz's restlessness, its creative energy to remake itself. Just as I follow contemporary jazz, so I enjoy and follow a lot of late 20th- / early 21st-century classical.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Alypius said:


> Jazz, like classical, aspires to be art music, as JACE noted earlier. Its world and aesthetic is so different from that of classical. Each performance is itself a unique composition. Jazz is not really about harmony or melody, though it often works within quite sophisticated harmonies and often has memorable melodies. At the heart of it, it's a conversation. It's a spontaneous conversation within a democracy of co-creators. The thrill of it is hearing the creation of new music right before your ears. I run across those who come at jazz with classically-trained ears and who sometimes complain about a certain harmonic "sameness" within the jazz they've run across. And there are those used to listening to rock music who don't know what to do with jazz's lack of "song" orientation, its instrumental-only character and its lack of refrains and "hooks." I try to get people new to jazz to listen to it neither as melody nor as harmonic progressions but as following this spontaneous and intricate conversation between these immensely talented and quite fearless musicians. Jazz is a high-wire act. It is easy to crash and burn in a live performance. You can't play it safe, and there's no set script. I should add that many classical listeners tend to be so harmony-oriented or so counterpoint-oriented that they tend to miss jazz's rhythmic complexities, its polyrhythms, that are part of its African inheritance (though those who accustomed to 20th-century classical often pick up on this).


It's not music I generally listen to, but I appreciate jazz for the reasons you mention. I can only get really captivated by jazz music and improvisation when I can watch the performers do their thing (live or on video).


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Absolutely. New age piano, progressive metal, symphonic metal and my favorite Christmas hymns in particular.


----------

