# Embarrassing "noob" thoughts about classical music



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hehe  I thought this might be a fun topic. When you guys were just getting into classical music, were there some things you thought about it that were just objectively and embarrassingly wrong? 

I'll give some examples of my own first. One of my first experiences with classical music were these CD's that my grandma gave me. They were just your run of the mill, "best of" compilation CD's. There was one for Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and Tchaikovsky. Anyway, I knew a little bit about key signatures since I had just started playing viola at the time and I read the titles and as expected, most of them said symphony so and so in b minor or a major or whatever. But some of the pieces, such as Swan Lake Suite and Arrival of the Queen of Sheba didn't specify the key of the piece in the title. And for some reason, since they didn't specify the key in the title, I just kind of assumed they weren't in any key.  

So am I the only one that had silly newbie misconceptions about classical music when I was just starting out?


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I used to think that since a "string quartet" is four string instruments, a "piano trio" must be a piece for three pianos, a "clarinet quintet" a piece for five clarinets, etc. In my defense, that was a rather logical train of thought, no?


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Xaltotun said:


> I used to think that since a "string quartet" is four string instruments, a "piano trio" must be a piece for three pianos, a "clarinet quintet" a piece for five clarinets, etc. In my defense, that was a rather logical train of thought, no?


It's very logical. A piano duet is a piece for two pianos, so it's only reasonable that a piano trio should be for three pianos. But alas, straightforwardness was never a virtue chamber ensembles cared much for.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Xaltotun said:


> I used to think that since a "string quartet" is four string instruments, a "piano trio" must be a piece for three pianos, a "clarinet quintet" a piece for five clarinets, etc. In my defense, that was a rather logical train of thought, no?


Oh that's not so embarrassing. I would probably think the same if I didn't learn the definition of a piano trio nearly simultaneously with hearing about piano trios at all.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Xaltotun said:


> I used to think that since a "string quartet" is four string instruments, a "piano trio" must be a piece for three pianos, a "clarinet quintet" a piece for five clarinets, etc. In my defense, that was a rather logical train of thought, no?


Oh that's not so embarrassing. I would probably think the same if I didn't learn the definition of a piano trio nearly simultaneously with hearing about piano trios at all.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I used to wonder if, say, "Beethoven's Symphony #3 in E-flat" meant that he'd written two earlier symphonies in E flat, or if it just meant (what it means) his third symphony in any key, and this one is in E flat. In high school I once wandered around a classical music shop for about an hour trying to figure it out.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

perhaps the classic of all, I used to think that a conductor actually lead the orchestra in REAL time. I mean, if the conductor swing the hand to the left, then all the left wings should play, and if the conductor move his hand faster, the player play faster as well. Which is actually an exciting thought.


----------



## beethovenian (May 2, 2011)

I used to think "eroica" means.......


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

violadude said:


> When you guys were just getting into classical music, were there some things you thought about it that were just objectively and embarrassingly wrong?


How about:



> I must admit I prefer musicals more than classical operas. Every single voice is unique, only one singer is bounded to every character. And soprano is just soprano. Better or worse, but still a soprano. No more, no less.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

jurianbai said:


> perhaps the classic of all, I used to think that a conductor actually lead the orchestra in REAL time. I mean, if the conductor swing the hand to the left, then all the left wings should play, and if the conductor move his hand faster, the player play faster as well. Which is actually an exciting thought.


this reminds me of some cartoon but i can't remember what it was


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

I used to think that a single symphonic movement was a full symphony. I never knew there was anything more to Beethoven's fifth for the example than the "dun-dun-dun-duuuuuun" allegro con brio.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

norman bates said:


> this reminds me of some cartoon but i can't remember what it was


Bugs Bunny conducts some Lizst piece?


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

The fact that there are three other movements and 20 more minutes in addition to that famous bit in Beethoven's 9th symphony.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Pieck said:


> Bugs Bunny conducts some Lizst piece?


exactly


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Brandenberg Concerto no. 3 is the first classical piece that really made a connection with me. However, just coming off of mainstream pop, it felt like the longest thing ever at the time. Then when I looked closely at the title I thought "Holy crap! this is only #3?? Jesus, there must be like 100's of these!"

As it turns out there are only 6...but I'm sure you all knew that before I did.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

For a while I thought the differences in vocal range between basses, tenors, altos and sopranos were much bigger than they actually are. E.g as in that basses and tenors barely overlapped at all which is far from true. I think it had something to do with how different a bass can sound from a tenor.

These aren't that embarrasing, but it wasn't until I worked for a while in an orchestra (not playing, just helping out with other stuff) that a realised that much of the stuff I would previously have attributed to the timpani was actually played by the gran cassa (bass drum), and some of what I thought was trombones was actually played by horns. (Not the soft horn sounds but the forte ones.)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Classic noob statement on hearing a classical piece, "That's a cool song." Yeah, I did it too.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Xaltotun said:


> I used to think that since a "string quartet" is four string instruments, a "piano trio" must be a piece for three pianos, a "clarinet quintet" a piece for five clarinets, etc. In my defense, that was a rather logical train of thought, no?


Not so daft! A 'clarinet quartet' can be four clarinets OR a clarinet/violin/cello/piano (usually) combination. And a 'piano duet' is for two pianos, so why shouldn't a 'piano trio' be for three of 'em?

Yes, logical. Sadly, there's little logic in our rarefied world!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Curiosity said:


> I used to think that a single symphonic movement was a full symphony. I never knew there was anything more to Beethoven's fifth for the example than the "dun-dun-dun-duuuuuun" allegro con brio.


I was going to add that. My misconception came about through the route of starting out with compilation CDs, which always give you the most famous movement of a work detached from the rest of the piece. It was quite a revelation when I realised that symphonies were more than just one movement!


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I had no idea how all of this fit into time. I "knew" that classical music was written from c18th to c19th. I had nothing beyond that. For example, I figured Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky all lived around the same time.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Manxfeeder said:


> Classic noob statement on hearing a classical piece, "That's a cool song." Yeah, I did it too.


Ah, the infamous misuse of "song". Ranks up there with
1. Calling all incidental music "classical"
2. A certain Taco Bell Canon in D
3. Beethoven was born deaf

And one that bothers me is 
4. Thinking that classical music is a single genre


----------



## beethovenian (May 2, 2011)

Xaltotun said:


> I used to think that since a "string quartet" is four string instruments, a "piano trio" must be a piece for three pianos, *a "clarinet quintet" a piece for five clarinets*, etc. In my defense, that was a rather logical train of thought, no?


oh dear... can you imagine 5 clarinets playing counterpoint at the same time?

that aside, your defense seems valid enough.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

beethovenian said:


> oh dear... can you imagine 5 clarinets playing counterpoint at the same time?


A friend of mine recently played a (very, very new) Stabat Mater scored for four clarinets, organ and female choir. Really a pity I never got to hear it.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I'm curious to know who appealed to your noob selves first, Mozart or Beethoven? Am I just odd in that Mozart appealed first? I thought Beethoven was clunky and unnecessary and Mozart was so pure, but I had composer aspirations and couldn't compare myself to Mozart since he seemed such an an inhuman prodigy, so Beethoven appealed more to me as a human being, but I wasn't sure I liked his music that much(mind you, this only lasted a month or so, until I explored more Beethoven). This was my rediscovery of classical music, after forgetting about it for a long time due to peer pressure in middle school, and listening to the Beatles mostly, back in the older days, I was obsessed with Tchaikovsky and Johann Strauss. 

Anyway, more with the question, I used to not be able to listen to a whole symphony on recording. "Best of" CDs were essential. This is why I like to make my own "best of" CDs today, but with more obscure repertoire, so I can introduce people to classical music. I have a "Flashy Russian Piano Piece" cd if anyone is interested(I'd love to tell what I put on it and in what order). I used to pop in on forums and yahoo with knowledge of two fairly underappreciated composers and feel that I had something to add, Chabrier and Gustav Holst(aside from the planets) as though I knew who was really good. They are great composers, but I don't just fixate on them for those reasons anymore.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

pjang23 said:


> 4. Thinking that classical music is a single genre


Well, classical is a genre in itself. As are jazz, rock, pop, country, etc. Within that, there are many periods (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc) and styles/forms (symphony, concerto, sonata, etc). So, in my understanding, 'classical' IS a single genre, generically speaking. Isn't it?


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

I believe at one point I thought Schumann and Schubert were related...


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

I used to think everything under the name "Strauss" came from the same guy.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> Well, classical is a genre in itself. As are jazz, rock, pop, country, etc. Within that, there are many periods (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc) and styles/forms (symphony, concerto, sonata, etc). So, in my understanding, 'classical' IS a single genre, generically speaking. Isn't it?


I think at the very least genres should be separated by the performing forces involved (kind of like separating poems and novels). I consider piano sonatas, string quartets, art songs, and opera to be different genres even if classical composers wrote for all of them. I see classical music more as a literature than as a genre.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

First concert I went to after getting interested in classical (around 1969) - someone asked me how I liked Ravel's "La Valse"?
I told them I didn't like "all this modern atonal stuff".


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

pjang23 said:


> I see classical music more as a literature than as a genre.


Come again?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> I'm curious to know who appealed to your noob selves first, Mozart or Beethoven?


Tchaikovsky. Mozart and Beethoven came later and at the same time.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I'm curious to know who appealed to your noob selves first, Mozart or Beethoven? Am I just odd in that Mozart appealed first? I thought Beethoven was clunky and unnecessary and Mozart was so pure, but I had composer aspirations and couldn't compare myself to Mozart since he seemed such an an inhuman prodigy, so Beethoven appealed more to me as a human being, but I wasn't sure I liked his music that much(mind you, this only lasted a month or so, until I explored more Beethoven). This was my rediscovery of classical music, after forgetting about it for a long time due to peer pressure in middle school, and listening to the Beatles mostly, back in the older days, I was obsessed with Tchaikovsky and Johann Strauss.


I think the first thing I ever listened to (not that I remember it very vividly) was Mozart's Requiem, and from there I got involved in Mozart's music fairly heavily. I didn't listen to much Beethoven - I much preferred listening to Mozart's piano concertos! But a couple of years later when I started listening to Beethoven more, I felt it was a real revelation.

With regards to your other point, I suppose another noob musical problem I had was that, for quite a long time, I just couldn't stand listening to a slow second movements of sonatas and symphonies and everything else. Now I couldn't live without them!


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I'm curious to know who appealed to your noob selves first, Mozart or Beethoven? Am I just odd in that Mozart appealed first? I thought Beethoven was clunky and unnecessary and Mozart was so pure, but I had composer aspirations and couldn't compare myself to Mozart since he seemed such an an inhuman prodigy, so Beethoven appealed more to me as a human being, but I wasn't sure I liked his music that much(mind you, this only lasted a month or so, until I explored more Beethoven). This was my rediscovery of classical music, after forgetting about it for a long time due to peer pressure in middle school, and listening to the Beatles mostly, back in the older days, I was obsessed with Tchaikovsky and Johann Strauss.


I think Mozart is more appealing for classical music newcomers in general, especially those coming from listening to primarily popular music. His music is more melodic, less complex in terms of form/structure and generally more "fun". Also nowadays he has a "rockstar" reputation courtesy of Amadeus.

I think Mozart appealed to me earlier (at around age 12, when I first heard the Requiem in a trailer for a game called Onimusha 3), but nowadays I prefer Beethoven, by far.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> I'm curious to know who appealed to your noob selves first, Mozart or Beethoven? Am I just odd in that Mozart appealed first?


Beethoven, because he was so human. I'm still having trouble with Mozart.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Argus said:


> Come again?


I don't mean the word "literature" in any elevatory sense (I think the term works as well for jazz, rock, pop, country, etc.)

It's just that the term "classical music" captures a body of works with such a diversity of performing forces, and I see that as an important dividing line. When Beethoven wrote Op.131, he did not consider himself to be "writing classical music", but he did consider himself to be writing a string quartet.

The label "classical music" was used later on to designate the literature of string quartets, piano sonatas, etc. under the tradition that Beethoven belonged to. Hope that made sense.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

I used to think classical music was interesting.



jurianbai said:


> perhaps the classic of all, I used to think that a conductor actually lead the orchestra in REAL time. I mean, if the conductor swing the hand to the left, then all the left wings should play, and if the conductor move his hand faster, the player play faster as well. Which is actually an exciting thought.


There is actually an improvisation thing about this. The conductor has a set of hand symbols that make the orchestra improvise in real time. Soundscaping I believe it's called.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Rasa said:


> I used to think classical music was interesting.
> 
> There is actually an improvisation thing about this. The conductor has a set of hand symbols that make the orchestra improvise in real time. Soundscaping I believe it's called.


I've fantasized about that, I didn't know it actually existed. It must be extremely complicated both for the conductor and the players.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

pjang23 said:


> I don't mean the word "literature" in any elevatory sense (I think the term works as well for jazz, rock, pop, country, etc.)
> 
> It's just that the term "classical music" captures a body of works with such a diversity of performing forces, and I see that as an important dividing line. When Beethoven wrote Op.131, he did not consider himself to be "writing classical music", but he did consider himself to be writing a string quartet.
> 
> The label "classical music" was used later on to designate the literature of string quartets, piano sonatas, etc. under the tradition that Beethoven belonged to. Hope that made sense.


Nope, I still don't understand why use the word 'literature'. It seems to just be acting as a substitute for the word 'genre' in your scenario with the word 'genre' being limited in its meaning.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I've fantasized about that, I didn't know it actually existed. It must be extremely complicated both for the conductor and the players.


Not at all, it's fun and easy. That depends ofcourse on what you want to achieve.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Rasa said:


> I used to think classical music was interesting. There is actually an improvisation thing about this. The conductor has a set of hand symbols that make the orchestra improvise in real time. Soundscaping I believe it's called.


@ Rasa, Do you mean *hand* *cymbals *or another type of *symbol *which may be utilized by the conductor?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Reading a book about classical composer's lives in my early "noob" days, I got the wrong impression of*

- I thought *Chopin *was maybe gay, since he had a long relationship with someone called George Sand (turns out it was a woman!)

- I didn't think that *Britten *was gay, the book refers to his "friendship" with Peter Pears. I thought it might be similar to the friendship & professional relationship between say Brahms & the violinist Joachim. My conclusion - eg. both Pears & Joachim being dedicatees of both composer's works & the first performers of them - was found to be clearly wrong when I found out from other sources that Britten & Pears were a gay couple.

But I must say, this knowledge - or wrong conclusion, knowledge with gaps in it - never affected my appreciation of either Chopin's or Britten's music...

* This was in the days before the internet...



Polednice said:


> With regards to your other point, I suppose another noob musical problem I had was that, for quite a long time, I just couldn't stand listening to a slow second movements of sonatas and symphonies and everything else. Now I couldn't live without them!


My parents were different with regards to that, one of them liked the more vigorous movts., the other liked the slower ones more. I think I got the best of both worlds, I have generally tended to like both of these things.



Rasa said:


> ...There is actually an improvisation thing about this. The conductor has a set of hand symbols that make the orchestra improvise in real time. Soundscaping I believe it's called.


I read that Schnittke put a "cadenza for conductor" in one of his works (have never hear it, btw). I wonder if the audience would notice the difference, not only if you saw it, but esp. if you just heard it on disc?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Rasa said:


> I used to think classical music was interesting.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

I used to think that all classical music was composed long ago and no composers were alive today...

Actually, Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are still composing... decomposing that is.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I had quite a few misconceptions about Stravinsky back in the day...I used to think he was a black guy, cause the only thing I had seen of Stravinsky was one of those bad drawings that you find on posters that cover school band rooms. The tone they gave him, while looking back I guess was appropriate, made it seem like he was an African American. Plus he had a badass black guy look on his face too.
I'm not being politically correct at all am I? I guess I should have been tipped off that he was Russian from the name...but I wasn't a very perceptive kid.
Then the next picture I saw of him was this http://www.berkshirefinearts.com/uploadedImages/articles/1150_Stravinsky76523.jpg

So then I thought Stravinsky was some sort of Prince...because he looks like Royalty in that picture.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

beethovenian said:


> I used to think "eroica" means.......


I went one step further and called it his 'erotica symphony' in company. Fortunately they thought I was kidding, so no harm done.

In 6th grade I entered a composition competition and titled my piece for solo piano a 'concerto.' The judges were quick to correct me.

Also looking back at my old composition notebook, when I put my name in the corner I would put the year I was born to the current year so it looked like: "My name (1991-2002)"

And I'm sure I'll think of plenty more!


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

My original pronunciation of Dvorak.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Nix said:


> I went one step further and called it his 'erotica symphony' in company. Fortunately they thought I was kidding, so no harm done.
> 
> In 6th grade I entered a composition competition and titled my piece for solo piano a 'concerto.' The judges were quick to correct me.
> 
> ...


 Oh Jeez the things I find in my old composition notebooks...I used to draw stems backwards and put accidentals on the wrong side of the note.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> My original pronunciation of Dvorak.


haha how did you pronounce it? I pronounced it like doov-rock with a little tongue roll on the "r".


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A friend of mine says that someone he knew a while back pronounced _Allegro Vivace _as _Allegro Viva*s*e_...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

violadude said:


> haha how did you pronounce it? I pronounced it like doov-rock with a little tongue roll on the "r".


Pretty much like how it looked in my head, something like dv(like a quick "duv")ōrak. With the worst American accent you can imagine.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Isn't it supposed to be pronounded dv (with no "uh" in between) or (with the r in the back of the throat) zhak?


----------



## beethovenian (May 2, 2011)

When in doubt, check the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Dvorak


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

all these embarrassing moments can be avoided by attending the conservatory... send your kids there!!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Well, I used to think Murray Perahia was amazing, it that counts...but then again, I was twelve


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

Sid James said:


> A friend of mine says that someone he knew a while back pronounced _Allegro Vivace _as _Allegro Viva*s*e_...


My dad has been listening to classical for at least 30 years, and he still says "sello" when talking about cellos.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Norse said:


> My dad has been listening to classical for at least 30 years, and he still says "sello" when talking about cellos.


You're not alone. My mom says "ensembo" instead of ensemble.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> My original pronunciation of Dvorak.


Yeah, and my original pronunciation of Prokofiev.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

kv466 said:


> Well, I used to think Murray Perahia was amazing, it that counts...but then again, I was twelve


Uh-oh. What's wrong with Murray Perahia, besides all those embarrassing haircuts in the '80s?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I fall so no one finds on the lounge chair, the secretary shall enter the time and says I HAVE NO ANSWERS OOO and she IS WHEN YOUR PAN LEAVE YES BEST WILL already I see right away he wanted to sell me, so I speak NOT FOR ME, NO PROBLEM in a few days PERSONALLY APE and the director's voice from the room next to the WHO CAME THERE and she says that the guy who left a **** what color spheroidal and he comes out and it turns out I did not get up because disrespect of chairs at the sight and good day exchange only when the speech spheroidal name and pulls out his paw that he stands up and says HALO WHY DO NOT YOU SIGNED BECAUSE I DO NOT NEED NAME TO MY **** and he begins OOOO LA LA LA tells SUCH A GOOD EDUCATION CUSTOMS ARE HOW I KNOW WHO I HAVE tO GIVE obliged to respond WHO HOW OOO AS YOU WRITE LETTER TO ELEGANT PAPER TO COUNCIL OF OUTSTANDING DICKS whether or not I OPEN THIS IS A DECENT speech is OK and leave


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

aramis said:


> i fall so no one finds on the lounge chair, the secretary shall enter the time and says i have no answers ooo and she is when your pan leave yes best will already i see right away he wanted to sell me, so i speak not for me, no problem in a few days personally ape and the director's voice from the room next to the who came there and she says that the guy who left a **** what color spheroidal and he comes out and it turns out i did not get up because disrespect of chairs at the sight and good day exchange only when the speech spheroidal name and pulls out his paw that he stands up and says halo why do not you signed because i do not need name to my **** and he begins oooo la la la tells such a good education customs are how i know who i have to give obliged to respond who how ooo as you write letter to elegant paper to council of outstanding dicks whether or not i open this is a decent speech is ok and leave


Are you drunk, sir?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Drunk people type pretty normally. People only type badly when they want to appear drunk.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I really can't think of any. I think I've always known more about classical music than the people around me, even growing up


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

samurai said:


> @ Rasa, Do you mean *hand* *cymbals *or another type of *symbol *which may be utilized by the conductor?


No, there's like a manual with hand-gestures that the orchestra is supposed to have different reactions to.


----------



## Fugue (Apr 26, 2011)

I used to think that Fagotte was a term of abuse amongst orchestral musicians!


----------



## ceadge (Aug 6, 2011)

My girlfriend plays in an orchestra, whereas I just like listening to classical. I know a bit more about classical music than most of my friends, but there is an embarrassing gulf between my beginner's knowledge and hers as an accomplished musician. She regularly takes me to task for my mispronunciations of composers - the worst examples being "Mailer" and "Haiden". Also, we were watching the BBC Prom on the TV once, and I remarked, "that was short movement!", to which she replied, "it's just a pause!!!".


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Thinking Richard Strauss was a part of the family including Johann Sr., Johann Jr. and Joseph...


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Fugue said:


> I used to think that Fagotte was a term of abuse amongst orchestral musicians!


In my youth orchestra, it sometimes was. ("Haha, you're '1st Fagotte,' haha.") Children.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Sorry to come off so stupid and ignorant, but could any of my fellow members enlighten me as to what the acronym *noob* stands for 
Thanks :tiphat:


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

samurai said:


> Sorry to come off so stupid and ignorant, but could any of my fellow members enlighten me as to what the acronym *noob* stands for
> Thanks :tiphat:


(Acknowledging Poe's law, I answer this as though serious.) "Noob" is short for "newbie," a general term for anyone who is new to a particular subject, especially on the Internet. It's not actually an acronym for anything. "Noob" is considered derogatory or insulting when applied to a person, while "newbie" is generally more polite. It can also be spelled "n00b."


----------



## UberB (Apr 16, 2011)

When I first listened to classical music (I was a kid) I used to think that the composer was playing/conducting the piece I was hearing. Beethoven was playing his piano sonatas, conducting his symphonies, Mozart conducting and playing his piano concertos, etc. Then my parents told me "that's actually another person playing".

I was like OMG NO WHY??!?!?


----------



## beethovenian (May 2, 2011)

UberB said:


> When I first listened to classical music (I was a kid) I used to think that the composer was playing/conducting the piece I was hearing. Beethoven was playing his piano sonatas, conducting his symphonies, Mozart conducting and playing his piano concertos, etc. Then my parents told me "that's actually another person playing".
> 
> I was like OMG NO WHY??!?!?


You are lucky your parent didn't answer you with "No sweetie, they are *dead* already".

Then...*insert creepy music, as camera pans into the child's bewildered look*









then your young and naive mind would go .."oh dear, then who the heck just played that piano sonata."


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

samurai said:


> Sorry to come off so stupid and ignorant...


You don't come off stupid and ignorant, you merely come off as a noob.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

How come people only ever played the "Prelude" to the Afternoon of a Fawn, and not the rest of the piece?
cheers,
GG


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

I used to think this guy was bach, because his mug was on a CD with Bach music.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I just remembered one: I used to think that Bach and Beethoven were the same person--that "Bach" was his nickname or something.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

I found it strange that they always add what key a work is in to the title. It seemed pointless to me. They didn't do that in pop or rock. The only explanation that I could come up with was that they must play these works in different keys depending on the preference of the conductor or soloists. I can remember myself in those early days of my newly discovered love for classical music things like going to the record shop and trying to find the other version of the Eroica. I already had the E-flat version. :lol:


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

This is a fun thread. There are so many, some have mentioned it already (symphony Erotica, composers lived only in the 18th century). I was completely unexposed to classical music when I was a child and thought that an orchestra consists of a bunch of strings players. No woodwinds, brass, nor percussion. Probably the stupidest, most embarrassing notion that anyone can have.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Here's a pretty embarrassing one. I used to think that every opera had fat women in viking outfits.


----------



## beethovenian (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Here's a pretty embarrassing one. I used to think that every opera had fat women in viking outfits.


D'oh! You remind me of this...









I am not sure about viking outfits but regarding fat sopranos....


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

beethovenian said:


> I am not sure about viking outfits but fat sopranos in opera strike a chord with me!


Actually, I used to think that being fat was a requirement for being an opera singer.


----------



## An Die Freude (Apr 23, 2011)

I used to think that the Four Seasons was a concerto in four movements, with the first movement of spring being the first movement, the third movement of summer being the second, and so on.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

An Die Freude said:


> I used to think that the Four Seasons was a concerto in four movements, with the first movement of spring being the first movement, the third movement of summer being the second, and so on.


I used to think the four seasons was like, the hardest most impressive thing any violinist could ever play.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2011)

The way I used to pronounce Berlioz...and the way I used to say Mozart's name with the "z" sound instead of the "ts" sound.


----------



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)

I don't really have an embarrassing thought to share~I am full of ignorance regarding this music BUT it is not embarrassing (yet  )

However I do have a question. Would someone be kind enough to explain what is meant by "cycle"?? In an other thread a question of how many _cycles_ do you own left me wondering...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

hawk said:


> I don't really have an embarrassing thought to share~I am full of ignorance regarding this music BUT it is not embarrassing (yet  )
> 
> However I do have a question. Would someone be kind enough to explain what is meant by "cycle"?? In an other thread a question of how many _cycles_ do you own left me wondering...


They were probably referring to recordings of all symphonic works by a single composer, for example, Fischer's recordings of the complete Haydn symphonies, or Karajan's recordings of the complete Beethoven symphonies. There can also be non-symphonic cycles.


----------



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)

Thanks for the explanation!!


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

hawk said:


> I don't really have an embarrassing thought to share~I am full of ignorance regarding this music BUT it is not embarrassing (yet  )
> 
> However I do have a question. Would someone be kind enough to explain what is meant by "cycle"?? In an other thread a question of how many _cycles_ do you own left me wondering...


For 'cycle', simply read 'series' or similar word. Beethoven's 'cycle' of symphonies could just as well be his 'series' or 'canon' of symphonies. It's just a terminological convention.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

There are also "song cycles" that are a bunch of songs that the composer meant to be played in a certain order. They are regarded as a single work, unlike a "symphonic cycle" which is more of a recording related later term.


----------



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)

Xaltotun said:


> There are also "song cycles" that are a bunch of songs that the composer meant to be played in a certain order. They are regarded as a single work, unlike a "symphonic cycle" which is more of a recording related later term.


Would Bachs orchestral Suites' fall into this category?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hawk said:


> Would Bachs orchestral Suites' fall into this category?


No, because songs in classical music are strictly pieces composed for a solo voice. Examples of song cycles would be Schubert's Die Winteriesse and Mahler's Kindototenlieder. They are a collection of short songs (analogous to movements in a symphony) that are related in some way.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

hawk said:


> Would Bachs orchestral Suites' fall into this category?


They could do, yes. You could say that Bach's orchestral suites include a 'cycle' of stylised dances. You could also refer to Bach's cycle of four orchestral suites. It's just a loose (and convenient) term - not to be taken too seriously or literally.


----------

