# Rate This Composition by Phish Lead Guitarist Trey Anastasio



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)




----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Sorry, but I believe this should have been posted in the Non-Classical section.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It's a 21st century composition, I think it counts.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

There is nothing classical sounding about it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

ArsMusica said:


> There is nothing classical sounding about it.


It's a 21st century composition which means it doesn't have to sound baroque, classical, romantic, impressionistic or atonal (though this pervades 21st century composition).

This composition dares to not follow the trends of modern composition, but it is indeed composition.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Amateurish is the first thing that comes to mind. The orchestra parts are mostly just derived from the guitar part, doubling it or playing what the guitar arpeggiates as block chords. In fact, there is no reason I can see to make this material into a piece for orchestra in the first place. The guitar part isn't particularly interesting and expanding its meager material for orchestra just makes the lack of substance all the more apparent. The composer might profit from a couple of years studying counterpoint and orchestration, although surely his time would be better spent writing for and touring with Phish.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Here is the same song played by the four piece rock band, Phish:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Amateurish is the first thing that comes to mind. The orchestra parts are mostly just derived from the guitar part, doubling it or playing what the guitar arpeggiates as block chords. In fact, there is no reason I can see to make this material into a piece for orchestra in the first place. The guitar part isn't particularly interesting and expanding its meager material for orchestra just makes the lack of substance all the more apparent. The composer might profit from a couple of years studying counterpoint and orchestration, although surely his time would be better spent writing for and touring with Phish.


I see where you are coming from, I'm a little bias towards this composer. I really love it and think it's beautiful! Some of his guitar work reminds me of Jeff Beck's minimalism and bending of notes.

It's a very emotive piece I think, not technically impressive.

Also, thanks for taking the time to listen and form a thought out reply.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Check this one out too. It's a two Phish compositions combined and arranged for solo orchestra. This one is a bit more impressive I think.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I see where you are coming from, I'm a little bias towards this composer. I really love it and think it's beautiful! Some of his guitar work reminds me of Jeff Beck's minimalism and bending of notes.
> 
> It's a very emotive piece I think, not technically impressive.
> 
> Also, thanks for taking the time to listen and form a thought out reply.


It works way, way better in the band arrangement! Vastly preferable to the orchestra version. I think this just confirms what I wrote. If one wishes to write for orchestra, it is much better to have that in mind from the beginning and to write parts sufficient to the scale of the larger ensemble.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> It works way, way better in the band arrangement! Vastly preferable to the orchestra version. I think this just confirms what I wrote. If one wishes to write for orchestra, it is much better to have that in mind from the beginning and to write parts sufficient to the scale of the larger ensemble.


I'm not positive, but I think he actually arranged the orchestral version before the band version.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I found both the orchestral and band versions uninteresting and directionless. It feels safe and bland for what I take is an ambitious piece.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I found both the orechestral and band versions uninteresting and directionless.


He's one of my heroes, lol! He can do no wrong. .

I enjoy the way it all sounds in both versions, that's all I look for! I'm not sure directionless is a good term for it, for it certainly has fluidity and has a mini climax. It's mostly just coasts along without too many peaks.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Check out the other one I posted, then I'll post the band versions that comprise that one composition.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

When I hear orchestrated pop, it feel artificial to me unless done with a good amount of sarcasm. For me the Beatles are unequaled like in I Am the Walrus. This is probably the next fave group for a bit of pseudo-Classical pop


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> When I hear orchestrated pop, it feel artificial to me unless done with a good amount of sarcasm. For me the Beatles are unequaled like in I Am the Walrus. This is probably the next fave group for a bit of pseudo-Classical pop


A bit cheesy for my tastes.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


>


It didn't work for me - but thanks for posting Captainnumber36.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

janxharris said:


> It didn't work for me - but thanks for posting Captainnumber36.


Didn't work, as in, you couldn't get it to play, or it didn't do it for you?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Didn't work, as in, you couldn't get it to play, or it didn't do it for you?


Sorry - it played but it's not my thing.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Sorry - it played but it's not my thing.


That's alright!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I can see why you like it. There's real talent behind it. I'm not sure why you appeared to be so defensive about the claim that it isn't classical music. If I got it right this was the lead guitarist playing an orchestrated version of a work played by the 4 piece *rock* band Phish.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I enjoyed it. The beginning is a classical orchestration and then there's the entrance of the guitar. I have no problem with this work being posted in classical. The orchestration is sensitive and well done; after all, it was written for a symphony orchestra with some added cross-over elements that I felt were complementary. I'm for giving new works of this nature a chance to be heard.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> I enjoyed it. The beginning is a classical orchestration and then there's the entrance of the guitar. I have no problem with this work being posted in classical. The orchestration is sensitive and well done; after all, it was written for a symphony orchestra with some added cross-over elements that I felt were complementary. I'm for giving new works of this nature a chance to be heard.


So this is classical music now?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

It worked for me. And I think it is OK here.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Glad to see some appreciation of it around here! He's one of my heroes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> I can see why you like it. There's real talent behind it. I'm not sure why you appeared to be so defensive about the claim that it isn't classical music. If I got it right this was the lead guitarist playing an orchestrated version of a work played by the 4 piece *rock* band Phish.


B/C I think it is modern Classical. What exactly defines something as being Classical or not? The orchestrated version was arranged before the band version I believe.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> B/C I think it is modern Classical. What exactly defines something as being Classical or not? The orchestrated version was arranged before the band version I believe.


I don't understand the need to put works in the category of classical music when they already are in their own category other than the need to imbue them with gravitas. I'm familiar with Anastasio. He's been around a long time. I've never seen any evidence that he sees himself as a classical composer and I rather doubt that he looks on Petrichor as a classical music work, regardless of which came first, the orchestral or rock group version.

There has been a long history of rock artists mixing classical-like orchestral elements in their works, but there was never any doubt about what music genre they belonged to. Examples are Moody Blues (particularly Knights in White Satin), Beatles, ELO, Aerosmith and so on.

Some people say, 'What's the harm?' I say that the more you dilute classical music with questionably-related creations, the more confusion exists as to what classical music is.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

..................,


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> I don't understand the need to put works in the category of classical music when they already are in their own category other than the need to imbue them with gravitas. I'm familiar with Anastasio. He's been around a long time. I've never seen any evidence that he sees himself as a classical composer and I rather doubt that he looks on Petrichor as a classical music work, regardless of which came first, the orchestral or rock group version.
> 
> There has been a long history of rock artists mixing classical-like orchestral elements in their works, but there was never any doubt about what music genre they belonged to. Examples are Moody Blues (particularly Knights in White Satin), Beatles, ELO, Aerosmith and so on.
> 
> Some people say, 'What's the harm?' I say that the more you dilute classical music with questionably-related creations, the more confusion exists as to what classical music is.


And how do we DEFINE Classical music?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> ..................,


hahahaha, lol!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> ..................,


I'm happy you are excited by this post! I'm a bit a of a game changer by nature.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> So this is classical music now?


I didn't care for this very much.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> And how do we DEFINE Classical music?


Google it. The definitions vary in wording, but the overall meaning is similar and consistent.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Google it. The definitions vary in wording, but the overall meaning is similar and consistent.


I define it as composition w/ development using mostly traditional classical instruments. I found some on google too.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I define it as composition w/ development using mostly traditional classical instruments. I found some on google too.


I'd be awfully surprised to see a reliable definition based only on the fact that instruments of the orchestra are used. That dumbs down classical music to something far less than the great classical works over the centuries.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> I'd be awfully surprised to see a reliable definition based only on the fact that instruments of the orchestra are used. That dumbs down classical music to something far less than the great classical works over the centuries.


It's the least restrictive definition and thus the most open to developments over time.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I understand wanting to hold Classical Music to a certain standard though and wanting to restrict the definition a bit more to bring more meaning to what it means to be Classical Music.


----------

