# Great non-classical music



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Let's share and recommend non-classical music that we feel is great.
Of course, there is some great music that isn't in the classical realm.
I would go even further and say that there is some great music in every single genre.
However, some genres are better than others, but even the worst genres have its good moments.

How do I define high quality music that has merit and can be considered art?

For me this is any music that contains clear expression of musical ideas, that contains genuine emotionality, and that is original in some way. It doesn't have to be very complex or developed or advanced - it only has to be powerful, and its power must come from sincere emotions and not from intentional efforts to make music commercial and likable.
So, the music in order to be art must reflect real feelings and ideas of those who made the music - if it is made only in order to satisfy public, then it isn't art.
Also, aesthetics is important element in deciding if the music is of merit or not - but this is purely subjective. And finally even if the music is not emotional it can be of merit if it is aesthetically pleasing or has some cerebral appeal. 

My definition is, of course amateurish, so if you don't like it, just disregard it and in this thread post links to non-classical music that you consider great, according to your own definition.

All genres are welcome, pop, rock, metal, jazz, folk, world, country, techno, house, trance, rap, hip-hop, gospel, R&B, soul, ... really whatever comes into your mind.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Be careful what you ask for. 

Here is song that a music teacher in college (ca. 1974) thought was Avant-garde classical at first when I played it for him and he was trying to guess the composer. Man, was he hot under the collar and suddenly back peddling when it got to about the 1:00 minute mark! 





Here's another piece by the same group -- bewilderingly complex, but also quite beautiful I think.




It's worth making it through the whole thing as it changes styles and moods throughout.

I've got about half a zillion more just as intriguing to me, but will not wear out my welcome at present.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Weston said:


> Be careful what you ask for.
> 
> Here is song that a music teacher in college (ca. 1974) thought was Avant-garde classical at first when I played it for him and he was trying to guess the composer. Man, was he hot under the collar and suddenly back peddling when it got to about the 1:00 minute mark!
> 
> ...


Great Zeus! I haven't heard those guys in years... They are definitely one of the better prog rock bands out there (I used to own both those albums), but its no longer my cup o' tea.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

*Stars of the Lid *is a duo (originally from Austin, Texas of all places), who use layers of effect-laden electric guitars to create really moody minimalist ambient music:

Articulate Silences, Part II

Even (Out) +

I Will Surround You

I generally don't listen to them too much however-- as beautiful as it is, it tends to depress me!


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

I'll go with Cousteau "The Last Good Day of the Year"






As well as Pink Martini "Amado Mio"


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Simple Minds - Belfast Child (1989)





Julie Covington - Don't Cry For Me Argentina (1976)





Ekatarina Velika - Par godina za nas (Catherine the Great - Just a Few Year Years Left For Us) - (1989) According to some people this song is the greatest rock song ever from the former Yugoslavia





Time - Da li znaš da te volim (Do you know that I love you?)


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Be careful what you ask for.
> 
> Here is song that a music teacher in college (ca. 1974) thought was Avant-garde classical at first when I played it for him and he was trying to guess the composer. Man, was he hot under the collar and suddenly back peddling when it got to about the 1:00 minute mark!
> 
> ...


Wow, thanks for it, Gentle Giant sounds great, even though I never heard them before.
Especially this second song "On Reflection" - I liked a lot.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

"Classical music" is a term almost exclusively used by people outside the "classical music" world. It is effectively meaningless, as evidenced by the number of requests on this site for the name of a piece of "classical music" where the questioner appears to think that the mere presence of strings, and absence of drumkit, qualifies the music for the "classical" label.
The concept of "non-classical music" is therefore even more bizarre.
Far better to use a term I believe the Germans adopt - art-music - which then allows quality to be the criterion of inclusion rather than style.

"Let's share and recommend non-classical music that we feel is great." Could I make a plea for people to explain _*why *_they feel the music is great? And perhaps explain what they mean by great? (usually "X is a great piece of music" in places like this forum precisely and solely means "I like X a lot").

And is it not possible for people to offer a reasoned argument why a piece of music is great, and not just rely on their feelings?

I am afraid the Gentle Giant tracks are whimsical rather than "bewilderingly complex". If you want "bewilderingly complex" try analysing Stockhausen's _Gruppen_. Now that is a great piece of music!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I am afraid the Gentle Giant tracks are whimsical rather than "bewilderingly complex".

Is "bewilderingly complex" inherently a standard of "great" music?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I am afraid the Gentle Giant tracks are whimsical rather than "bewilderingly complex".
> 
> Is "bewilderingly complex" inherently a standard of "great" music?


No, it isn't. Not in my opinion anyway. Complex is not the same as inspired.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

I would like this thread to be for sharing and recommending what you consider great non-classical music.

Regardless of the definition of "great", and
regardless of the definition of "non-classical" .

I still hope that most people understand what those terms mean, and also, I still hope that most people refer to pretty much same concepts when they use those terms.

I will offer my own, very simple definition - which is not at all relevant to the thread, but you can use it if you like it.

So
great = of high artistic merit and/or significance (here again you can use ANY criterion in determining what is the thing that grants artistic merit and significance to a piece of music)

non-classical = created outside formal canon and without regards to conventions and rules of Western classical music. Another possible definition - music created by individuals without formal training and education in western classical music, or even if they have such education - any music whose style is different from the style of compositions accepted in the canon of western classical music.

Once again. Don't bother with definitions and theory.
Recommend WHATEVER you consider to be great non-classical music. By your VERY OWN definition.

If, by your definition
great = I like it, this is OK too. Post links to music that you LIKE.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> "Let's share and recommend non-classical music that we feel is great." Could I make a plea for people to explain _*why *_they feel the music is great? And perhaps explain what they mean by great? (*usually "X is a great piece of music" in places like this forum precisely and solely means "I like X a lot*").
> 
> And is it not possible for people to offer a reasoned argument why a piece of music is great, and not just rely on their feelings?


Saying 'X is a great piece of music' means exactly 'I like X a lot'. And if people say they think something is great yet they don't like it, or vice versa, they are pretty much talking out of the wrong hole. Also, I'm glad StLuke's is in this thread as he loves discussing this point.

As for Gentle Giant, I like a bit of prog (Pink Floyd, Focus, King Crimson, Rush, some Yes, Camel, Gong, a lot of the Canterbury bands) but some I just can't get into whatsoever. Gentle Giant, Genesis, Caravan, Van Der Graaf Generator, ELP and the prog-metal bands, with the possible exception of Tool, do absolutely nothing for me and I don't really know why. Genesis are especially puzzling as I don't really like any of their stuff but if I had to listen to some I'd choose the Duke and Abacab era over the Gabriel stuff. Saying that some of Steve Hackett's solo albums are decent.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Marmalade Circus is a 10-piece jazz ensemble from Adelaide, South Australia (my home town), and in the link is my favourite piece by them, called *Salaam*. It's stunning.

http://www.myspace.com/marmaladecircusmusic/music/playlists


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Argus said:


> Saying 'X is a great piece of music' means exactly 'I like X a lot'. And if people say they think something is great yet they don't like it, or vice versa, they are pretty much talking out of the wrong hole. Also, I'm glad StLuke's is in this thread as he loves discussing this point.
> 
> As for Gentle Giant, I like a bit of prog (Pink Floyd, Focus, King Crimson, Rush, some Yes, Camel, Gong, a lot of the Canterbury bands) but some I just can't get into whatsoever. Gentle Giant, Genesis, Caravan, Van Der Graaf Generator, ELP and the prog-metal bands, with the possible exception of Tool, do absolutely nothing for me and I don't really know why. Genesis are especially puzzling as I don't really like any of their stuff but if I had to listen to some I'd choose the Duke and Abacab era over the Gabriel stuff. Saying that some of Steve Hackett's solo albums are decent.


Do you not feel it is possible to make a value judgement on music?
If not, then presumably it is impossible to do so for any area of human creativity.

I think we need to make clear and agree on the criteria we are using and then it is possible.

Pop, rock, jazz, classical and every other genre have examples of greatness.

You can compare apples- this one is crunchy, juicy and sweet while the other is dry and and tasteless. This banana is soft and flavoursome while that one is bland and powdery.

So,most people would agree on which apple or banana is the better example.
However it is not possible to say this apple is better than that banana. Although you may say I happen to prefer apples to bananas.

A great pop record cannot be compared to a great jazz recording or a great piano sonata.

Most music lovers like all sorts of music.

PS. I think Genesis's 'Nursery Crime' and 'Selling England By The Pound' both contain some wonderfully inventive an beautiful music amongst some naff bits and of course the silly silly lyrics. (that goes for most prog)


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Do you not feel it is possible to make a value judgement on music?
> If not, then presumably it is impossible to do so for any area of human creativity.
> 
> I think we need to make clear and agree on the criteria we are using and then it is possible.
> ...


I'm tired so this might be a bit all over the place.

The problem with trying to grade art as good or bad or any kind of qualitative descriptor is that there is no measurement system that can be used to judge pieces of art against each other. Any kind of measurement system we introduce is only personal to ourselves and not an empirical sentiment that can be used as an entity outside of ourselves and amongst 'reality'. You can measure the loudness of a piece of music in sones, the pitches used in Hz, the duration of the piece in minutes or seconds as these are constant. I can't see how you can devise a measurement of a subjective factor like quality unless you crossover these objective measurements, which would be madness. This piece of music is great because it features X amount of frequencies for X seconds at X volume with X amount of silences etc wouldn't make sense. If it did make sense every artist would strive for the same goal and we would end up with homogeny.

However, to try to apply some kind of grading mechanism to art would automatically miss the point of art. And I can say that I, like everyone else, do not know the point of art. I just know what I like or at least think I know what I like. But what exactly is the difference between those two positions?

So, in summary, I think Terry Riley and Miles Davis are great but if someone said they are rubbish, I couldn't disagree with them.

I tried Nursery Crymes and Selling England by the Pound along with The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and apart from a few moments where there was some semblance of groove and interesting rhythm, they felt overly lyrics orientated at the expense of musical excursion. I think they may be too much 'prog' and not enough 'rock'.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Argus, if we consistently applied your point of view that it is impossible to measure greatness of music and other art, then music criticism and any other criticism would be totally pointless.

Also, if it was truly impossible to at least TRY to decide what is objectively beautiful, than, aesthetics as branch of philosophy wouldn't exist.

Maybe it is true that the beauty is in the eye of beholder,but some things are beautiful for MOST beholders, and also it is possible to study what are things that make something beautiful for MOST beholders.

Total generalization and strong judgments are pointless.
However, total relativization and withholding of any judgment is pointless as well.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> Argus, if we consistently applied your point of view that it is impossible to measure greatness of music and other art, then music criticism and any other criticism would be totally pointless.
> 
> Also, if it was truly impossible to at least TRY to decide what is objectively beautiful, than, aesthetics as branch of philosophy wouldn't exist.
> 
> ...


Criticism is pointless in regards to art. Well, to be fair, that depends on your definition of pointless.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I am afraid the Gentle Giant tracks are whimsical rather than "bewilderingly complex".
> 
> Is "bewilderingly complex" inherently a standard of "great" music?


No. It seemed to be Weston's justification for mentioning that music. _Gruppen _is great, despite being "bewildering complex".


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

I'd like you to comment on the top 10 songs from the Rolling Stone magazine list of 500 greatest songs of all time.

The songs are:

1. "Like A Rolling Stone" – Bob Dylan (1965)
2. "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" – The Rolling Stones (1965)
3. "Imagine" – John Lennon (1971)
4. "What's Going On" – Marvin Gaye (1971)
5. "Respect" – Aretha Franklin (1967)
6. "Good Vibrations" – The Beach Boys (1966)
7. "Johnny B. Goode" – Chuck Berry (1958)
8. "Hey Jude" – The Beatles (1968)
9. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" – Nirvana (1991)
10. "What'd I Say" – Ray Charles (1959)

Do you think these songs can be considered art? Can they be compared with classical music?
Where is the closest approach of popular music to the classical, when it comes to artistic quality?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Complexity is _one_ aspect of music that I enjoy in the right context that can indeed contribute to a piece's greatness. Too little complexity and I am bored; too much and the piece becomes rubbish. But it is only one aspect, not the be all end all. To say that only one aspect of a piece is what makes it great would be like saying a painting must have lots of detail to be great. I happen to like detail, but lacking detail does not detract from the greatness of a van Gogh. Including so much detail so as to create a scintillating shimmering effect does contribute to the greatness of some visionary art however.

It's the same with any other aspect of music. Take speed for instance. Too much or too little becomes rubbish. So I'm afraid in my taste realm the current performance of John Cage's _As Slow As Possible_ scheduled to end on September 5, 2640, is clearly unlistenable. Likewise some lightening speed thrash metal guitar solos with no time to register any of the notes in your brain are also unlistenable. But take a great guitarist like Al Dimeola or John McLaughlin, who race away with a frenzy of speeding notes, and your brain is trying to keep up and suddenly they hang on a single note, maybe bending it a little or slowly changing the touch and tone -- it feels like racing full speed off a cliff to free fall. Is this so much less great than Haydn's little joke in the "Surprise" Symphony?

Must we justify everything we enjoy? Do you analyze how your partner feels in your arms when you are in love?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Whistlerguy said:


> I'd like you to comment on the top 10 songs from the Rolling Stone magazine list of 500 greatest songs of all time.
> 
> The songs are:
> 
> ...


Anything in the artistic field that requires a creative effort can be considered art. But 'art' is just a word - it's not a quality label. I can throw a pie with 11 candles into the corner of the room and tell the highbrows that it symbolizes the North Korean soccer team at the world cup, and voila, I have created a work of art. Bad art maybe, but art nonetheless.

But yes, I think that the songs/recordings on that list are great. It's pointless to compare them to classical music. I'm generalizing a bit, but on average classical music is more 'advanced' than popular music. Classical composers work on a bigger canvas with more colours at their disposal, whereas songwriters in popular music make black & white drawings with a pencil. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior, because there are some mighty awful giant paintings and lots of lovely drawings. I know that it's possible to punch a lot of holes into that little theory, and I'm not entirely satisfied with my explanation myself, but taking into account my limited talents for translating my thoughts into words it's as close as I'm going to get.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> I'd like you to comment on the top 10 songs from the Rolling Stone magazine list of 500 greatest songs of all time.
> 
> The songs are:
> 
> ...


Bit of a predictable list from Rolling Stone but they're all decent songs. My favourites being Johnny B. Goode and Good Vibrations. Chuck Berry, aside fom him being a pervert and weirdo, is _the_ man. All his songs are based off about 3 templates with same riffs and licks yet they all groove like ****. Well, maybe not My Ding-a-Ling.
The Beatles and the Rolling Stones did a lot of songs I prefer to the two listed. I'd have opted for While my Guitar Gently Weeps or for sheer ingenuity Tomorrow Never Knows and for the Stones either Gimme Shelter or Sympathy for the Devil or even Paint It Black. I also far prefer Grapevine to What's Going On even though James Jamersons bassline on it is awesome.
It is a very skewed list though and doesn't even consider all the great songs written before the advent of rock and roll.

Jhar sums up my thoughts on the art questions quite well.

And Weston, John McLaughlin is a beast. Incredible guitarist. Up there with Robert Fripp and the man in my avatar in my top 3.


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> ...on average classical music is more 'advanced' than popular music. Classical composers work on a bigger canvas with more colours at their disposal, whereas songwriters in popular music make black & white drawings with a pencil...


Although I agree in a way, it doesn't really explain why Bach's solo violin sonatas are so much better than Enigma, Yes, Barclay James Harvest, Henry Cow and those other bigscale, 'halfclassical' groups. Pop is seldom absolute music, can that have anything to do with it?

You are out on dangerous ice. Noone disputes that Rembrandt is better art than Californian Art, Dostoievski is better literature than Jaqueline Susann, but beware if you say that Bach is better music than Dylan...Even in a forum like this.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

I have, in the past, listened to quite a lot of rock music (folk-rock, 60s, 70s, punk, early 80s, a few select 90s bands, so-called "post-rock" music, and, in my teen years, prog rock) though I listen to it much less often (hardly ever nowadays in fact).

Here's where I make my own personal distinction: I feel classical music is engaging both sensually, emotionally, intellectually, whereas rock music is engaging more on the sensual and emotional planes only. This is not a _shortcoming _of rock music, but rather that is precisely where its roots lie (and in fact, I think this is often why most prog rock strays too far from its rock roots).

Lou Reed's song, "Rock and Roll" I think sums up this experience well (and the original Velvet Underground recording captures this not only in the lyrics but _how _the lyrics are sung). What rock music lacks in the intellectual construction of songs, it makes up for in more primal urges.

Those primal urges exist in classical music too (I'm sure I'm not the only one here whose heart rate naturally increases while listening to Wagner's _Liebestod_), but the way in which classical composers approach music is more intellectual, more *attention to construction on the micro and macro levels* (and this is where Bach, Schoenberg and Ligeti share a common heritage). Even prog rock doesn't go to the same level of detail (at best, it sometimes _simulates _that kind of detail). Having that additional dimension in classical music, placing importance on the construction and internal workings distinguishes it from all other popular and folk music.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

wolf said:


> Although I agree in a way, it doesn't really explain why Bach's solo violin sonatas are so much better than Enigma, Yes, Barclay James Harvest, Henry Cow and those other bigscale, 'halfclassical' groups. Pop is seldom absolute music, can that have anything to do with it?


Maybe 'halfclassical' is the keyword here. Most of the time prog-rock doesn't work for me because it's as though the're trying to build a skyscraper on foundations fit only for a one storey house. They try to impress beyond their ability. As a result it often sounds over the top and even clumsy to me. There no doubt are exceptions (there always are), but they are extremely rare in my opinion.


> You are out on dangerous ice. Noone disputes that Rembrandt is better art than Californian Art, Dostoievski is better literature than Jaqueline Susann, but beware if you say that Bach is better music than Dylan...Even in a forum like this.


Well, Bach is better than almost anyone out there in classical music as well, so that's a tough match-up for Mr. Dylan.  But to answer that one with a cliché: it's an apples versus oranges comparison. If Dylan is a great rock or folkrock (or whatever) artist than that's enough because that's his chosen field. It doesn't mean that he's as great as Bach, but it means that he's great at what he does.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Maybe 'halfclassical' is the keyword here. Most of the time prog-rock doesn't work for me because it's as though the're trying to build a skyscraper on foundations fit only for a one storey house. They try to impress beyond their ability. As a result it often sounds over the top and even clumsy to me. There no doubt are exceptions (there always are), but they are extremely rare in my opinion.


I agree (and to think I used to really get into that stuff when I was a teenager LOL). Prog rock doesn't even imitate rock music-- it _simulates _it-- and as rock music is fails.

There are moments where classical influence can (consciously or unconsciously) make itself felt-- but within the simpler structures of a pop or rock song (the lovely contrapuntal ending of the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows" or the instrumentation of the Beatles "Eleanor Rigby")-- but this isn't prog rock-- it isn't trying to pretend its something it isn't.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

My opinion is:

1. classical music in general is superior to popular music of any kind and to folk music
2. greatest pieces of classical music are FAR superior to greatest pieces of popular music

BUT
3. greatest pieces of popular music are superior to average pieces of classical music

So, IMHO, out of 106 Haydn's symphonies some are just average. If you compare one of his weaker symphonies to, say songs such as Yesterday, Child in Time, Eleanor Rigby, Tomorrow Never Knows, Within You Without You, Johnny B. Goode, Respect, etc... I would say that these songs are both historically and artistically superior to Haydn's weaker symphonies. And they are also more creative and more original.

All Haydn's symphonies are still more advanced and demanding than these songs, but this doesn't make them automatically more important or artistically superior.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Whistlerguy said:


> Let's share and recommend non-classical music that we *feel *is great.


 [My emphasis]

Right. Back on topic then? There are just too many misconceptions and rash generalizations in this thread for me to respond to, so I'll let it go.

I think I have posted elsewhere one of my favorite bands lately is Niacin, named after the vitamin because of the focus on the mighty Hammond *B3* organ. If you can make it to the 30 second mark and tell me Billy Sheehan isn't just about the greatest electric bassist currently working, then we must not be from the same planet.





Here's another nice video - not live, but I think it's from the band's official YouTube channel.




The weird thing is, they are marketed at times as jazz. 

Alright - I'm not totally stuck in progressive rock land. I like jazz, and folk, and electronica too.
Here's some folk I enjoy a lot.





Come on folks - let's see more of your selections.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Maybe 'halfclassical' is the keyword here. Most of the time prog-rock doesn't work for me because it's as though the're trying to build a skyscraper on foundations fit only for a one storey house. They try to impress beyond their ability. As a result it often sounds over the top and even clumsy to me.


Regardless, you are just one person. Being able to conceive a skyscraper doesn't make you special.

I doubt you listen to music that reflects your own ability, maybe you should do so rather than trying to upscale your intellectual prowess through other people's ideas.


----------



## The Cosmos (Oct 2, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> My opinion is:
> 
> 1. classical music in general is superior to popular music of any kind and to folk music
> 2. greatest pieces of classical music are FAR superior to greatest pieces of popular music
> ...


If I were you, I'd just drop this entire artistically this or artistically that and instead, LISTEN with your ears rather than pre-conceived ideas. Of course, not that I have anything against it, but hey, just trying to make life simple here .

Anyways, in my opinion, here are a few legendary song-writers:

*Townes Van Zandt*






*John Martyn
*





*Leonard Cohen*






*Tom Waits*






*Scott Walker*


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

151 said:


> Regardless, you are just one person. Being able to conceive a skyscraper doesn't make you special.
> 
> I doubt you listen to music that reflects your own ability, maybe you should do so rather than trying to upscale your intellectual prowess through other people's ideas.


I don't appreciate being talked to in that tone of voice and I suggest you refrain from doing so in the future.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

The Cosmos said:


> *John Martyn
> *
> *Scott Walker*


These two I was not familiar with, though after I looked them up on Wikipedia, I see they both started out in the 1960's. It's nice to be introduced to new old music.

John Martyn had a haunting voice. I'll have to add him to my want list. I don't have a clue what he is singing, but I can't understand classical style singing either, often even when it is in English.

I have mixed feelings about the Scott Walker pieces. The more recent clip sounds creepy in a good way - forlorn, surreal, most bizarre. It seems very post rock. But then the link to the earlier clip seems mainstream to me - not down my alley. I would definitely go for his more recent 4AD style.

I first became aware of Tom Waits through the movie Dracula. He still scares the hell outta me.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Weston said:


> These two I was not familiar with, though after I looked them up on Wikipedia, I see they both started out in the 1960's. It's nice to be introduced to new old music.
> 
> John Martyn had a haunting voice. I'll have to add him to my want list. I don't have a clue what he is singing, but I can't understand classical style singing either, often even when it is in English.
> 
> ...


Tom Waits can make me cry. He knows how to nail pathos just right. His album _Mule Variations _is a nice introduction to his music.

I can only handle Scott Walker in small doses, but he's terrific-- a surrealist Elvis crooner backed by Ligeti!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Anybody here like Steely Dan?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Petwhac said:


> Anybody here like Steely Dan?


Yup.

And here's another one!D)


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Petwhac said:


> Anybody here like Steely Dan?


I'm not a HUGE fan but I like them very much. I like them enough to own nearly all of their albums.


----------



## Niebolaz (Jul 9, 2009)

Well, prog-wise I would recommend some bands from the bit overlooked Italian scene: PFM, Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso, Le Orme, Celeste, Alusa Fallax etc. - they're not only on par with the british giants but some of their music is strikingly beautiful. Outside prog: Tom Waits, Nick Drake and Dead Can Dance (I wonder if anyone here heard of them: here in UK they're impossible to find in stores, yet in my country (Poland) they're quite popular. And they're from Australia!).


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Niebolaz said:


> . . . Outside prog: Tom Waits, Nick Drake and Dead Can Dance (I wonder if anyone here heard of them: here in UK they're impossible to find in stores, yet in my country (Poland) they're quite popular. And they're from Australia!).


I have most of the Dead Can Dance albums. They are a fantastic group. I'm a little more partial to Brendan Perry's voice than to Lisa Gerard's, though she is quite innovative too. Some people categorize them as goth, and some put them as world music. To me they are just timeless music without a category.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

What do you think about some older Italian canzones (and especially Neapolitan songs) and French chansons?

In my opinion these songs are almost equal to art songs (and some of them are even better) and they are eternal, because they have enduring popularity, despite some of them being very old.
The same is probably true for some pop standards and jazz classics.

Here are some examples:

Funiculì, Funiculà (Luigi Denza, 1880)
O Sole Mio (Eduardo di Capua, 1898)
Santa Lucia (1849)
Volare (Domenico Modugno, 1958)
La Vie En Rose (Edith Piaf, 1946)
What a Wonderful World, (Louise Armstrong, 1968)
My way (Frank Sinatra, 1969)
New York, New York (Liza Minnelli, 1977)

and many others...

All these songs have in common that they are covered by extremely many artists in very diverse styles and different periods of time.

In my opinion, this shows that these songs transcend the time and style in which they are composed and become part of global cultural heritage.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Whistlerguy said:


> What do you think about some older Italian canzones (and especially Neapolitan songs) and French chansons?
> 
> In my opinion these songs are almost equal to art songs (and some of them are even better) and they are eternal, because they have enduring popularity, despite some of them being very old.
> The same is probably true for some pop standards and jazz classics.
> ...


Well, that goes for a lot of pop from the pre-rock era. The songs of Cole Porter, Harold Arlen, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Rodgers & Hart (or Hammerstein), Johnny Mercer, George & Ira Gershwin and others often saw the light of day in the musical theatre after which they were picked up by crooners and jazz vocalists and played by jazz instrumentalists. And those songs continue to be re-interpreted by traditional pop and jazz acts to the present day. It was during the rock era that most songs became identified with one artist or band, especially after Dylan and Lennon & McCartney when it became almost obligatory for pop/rock acts to write their own material.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

I just read the previous 2 pages, and what strikes me is, on any other board people would just post links or mention names...whereas here it turns into a discussion of the definition of great. If someone posted in here saying they really liked some pop music ('non-classical') would it be looked down upon or rejected because it was not considered intellectual enough for the forum??

I like a lot of singer-songriters whose songs I find are honest pieces of work; good lyrics and good melodies. However some of these are also commercial artist and do well in charts. Does that make it less "artistic" and less worthy of a mention? 

To discuss the definition of great music is like discussing "What is art" - it won't result in anything but bickering and clashing of opinions.


----------



## DreamInSong (Aug 7, 2010)

A rock album I think many Classical fans would enjoy:

Gazpacho - Night


----------



## muxamed (Feb 20, 2010)

Instrumental music from the Balkans


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

By linking Stefanovski/Tadic, muxamed inspired me to link Byzantine music, performed by Divna Ljubojevic:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=divna+ljubojevic&aq=f

and also these guys - Teofilovic Brothers:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=braca+teofilovic&aq=f


----------

