# Electric guitar in a role of classical instrument



## Pavel

Dear forumers. I would like to invite you to watch and discuss several videos.

Important! Here's no even a hint on rock/pop/jazz versions etc., with no overdrive, chorus and any other effects. This is an academic music in its pure form. El. guitar just trying on the role of academic instrument.


----------



## norman bates

I like when someone try to use electric guitar to play classical music, but I don't understand the fear to use effects, it's not academic enough to use a distortion? Anyway I've liked the most the Castelnuovo piece because it seems to me that the clean sound is good for that kind of harmony. In the last two pieces I don't know, it's well played but i don't think that the clean tone blends wery well with the other instruments.


----------



## BurningDesire

I think the playing is beautiful, though I thought the tone was a tad noisy (buzzing of the strings against the frets being audible) for what it felt like you were going for. Its sort of a tricky situation for electric guitarists and composers/arrangers wishing to utilize it, because there are lots of people who stereotype it as the rock n' roll instrument (much in the same way accordion is stereotyped as the 'polka' instrument), and on the other side, when they just use the most simple set-up of the instrument, just a clean signal, you get people complaining about not taking full advantage of the instrument's possibilities. You don't see people complaining when you write a piano piece that doesn't use all the crazy extended techniques that Crumb, Cage, and Cowell invented. The electric guitar is an instrument with IMMENSE possibilities, and some of those are accessed simply through the mechanical aspects of the instrument and a clean signal to the amplifier, and those can be incredibly beautiful ^_^

And your performances were beautiful~


----------



## Kopachris

norman bates said:


> I like when someone try to use electric guitar to play classical music, but I don't understand the fear to use effects, it's not academic enough to use a distortion? Anyway I've liked the most the Castelnuovo piece because it seems to me that the clean sound is good for that kind of harmony. In the last two pieces I don't know, it's well played but i don't think that the clean tone blends wery well with the other instruments.


Especially in the case where the guitar is replacing a cello, I think a bit of distortion, and perhaps compression would be appropriate for a more sustained sound.


----------



## DrKilroy

It is used here, in Kapustin's Piano Concerto. However, in his jazzy style, it does not seem too unfamilar.






Best regards, Dr


----------



## norman bates

BurningDesire said:


> I think the playing is beautiful, though I thought the tone was a tad noisy (buzzing of the strings against the frets being audible) for what it felt like you were going for. Its sort of a tricky situation for electric guitarists and composers/arrangers wishing to utilize it, because there are lots of people who stereotype it as the rock n' roll instrument (much in the same way accordion is stereotyped as the 'polka' instrument), and on the other side, when they just use the most simple set-up of the instrument, just a clean signal,* you get people complaining about not taking full advantage of the instrument's possibilities.*


I'm not saying that. I'm listening right now to the amazing Ed Bickert with Paul Desmond and I can't think of a more beautiful sound of that of the clean telecaster of Bickert on Warm Valley. But when I've read "no overdrive, chorus and any other effects. This is an academic music in its pure form" i've thought that a lot of times distortion, wah wah, delay or other effects are seen by classical musicians as something, I don't know, vulgar? Tawdry? Or maybe it's just so difficult to notate on a score for an effected guitar.
And, as Kopachris says, I think too that the last two pieces could be rendered better with a distortion and more sustain, altough I'd be more curious to ear an effected guitar in a more modern context than in a baroque piece.


----------



## jani

I wish&think that we are gonna see lots of classical works with electric guitar on this century.
Because this generation is very used to very strange timbers like distorted guitar and other electric instruments.
We also need composers who are good enough to "Impress" the classical music society.


----------



## neoshredder

I'm hoping Contemporary Classical makes a comeback. After Ligeti's death, there haven't been any big names to replace him. We need something big. Maybe it's dying? Hope not.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> I'm hoping Contemporary Classical makes a comeback. After Ligeti's death, there haven't been any big names to replace him. We need something big. Maybe it's dying? Hope not.


Well, Chapela's "Magnetar," a concerto for electric cello, was premiered here last year by the LA Phil and got a great reception. The cello was used mostly as a MIDI driver with plenty of effects; the soloist even had a wah-wah pedal set up to control five effects. The programming was done by Chapela's brother. Unfortunately, there are no recordings except in my personal "unauthorized" vault!

I see no issue with electric guitars and think they have a lot of possibilities, effects and all. I'm still waiting for an electric guitar quartet to perform a real blowout version of the Grosse Fuge. That would be a gas!


----------



## jani

KenOC said:


> Well, Chapela's "Magnetar," a concerto for electric cello, was played recently here by the LA Phil and got a great reception -- despite the fact that it's largely atonal. The cello was used mostly as a MIDI driver with plenty of effects; the soloist even had a couple of pedals set up effects controllers. The programming was done by Chapela's brother. Unfortunately, there are no recordings except in my personal "unauthorized" vault!
> 
> I see no issue with electric guitars and think they have a lot of possibilities, effects and all. I'm still waiting for an electric guitar quartet to perform the Grosse Fuge. That would be a gas!


Someone should do and electric guitar version of his piano sonatas. This version is good but not even close to the original.
I would do it but with my recording gear i wouldn't be able to get a good tone.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> I'm hoping Contemporary Classical makes a comeback. After Ligeti's death, there haven't been any big names to replace him. We need something big. Maybe it's dying? Hope not.


You seem to be a pretty nice guy (and I hope I'm not disobeying any terms of service by saying so) but really, neoshredder. Ligeti's the last big name?

Besides, think about the whole concept of "big names." Doesn't that smack at bit of the kind of snobbery that anti-modernists always seem able to find (whether it's actually there or not) in the arguments of the pro-modernists?

"We only want the big names. We don't have time for a bunch of little names. We're busy people who want only the greatest of the great, and we want them handed to us on a platter. We don't have the time to search things out for ourselves. 'Slave! Bring me that salver!!'"

That being said, I still think you can find plenty of "big" names still around. But it depends, utterly, on how one defines "big." And there's the rub, the eternal rub--if I mention a big name, any name, all some random bit of cleverness has to do is say "Big? You're calling **** big? I've never even heard of her! Hahaha!!"

And so it goes.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Has anyone written a concerto for electric guitar? I mean a concerto in the traditional sense; solo and orchestra, fast-slow-fast movements or more or less.


----------



## Guest

@Pavel, I am not a lover of electric guitar in any shape or form and particularly when an attempt is made to play serious music but you have made me reassess the instrument, the playing and result were excellent and those saying the (buzzing of the strings against the frets being audible) as if it was detrimental and not a common part of Guitar playing should listen to some of the great classical Guitarists.
As far as I am concerned it was very well done Bravo Bravo :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

It is never the tool, but what is done with it. The moment any instrumental references or habitual 'rock style' inflections are 
1.) not at all present where they are by association horribly out of place / context.
2.) or are deftly used in a way where they lose that sense of association, blended to be 'just another voice and color' in the ensemble

then you have something apt, and barely 'controversial' any longer.

Using it for 'effect' in these 'introductory' stages of trying to pull it into the fold of classical instrumentation, sounds more 'affected' than 'good effect.'

Electronics have been at least a little bit of classical music, including in conjunction with acoustic instruments, for quite a while. No reason this instrument will not, at times, join the fold, and very effectively. Depends entirely on the composer, and the piece.

I don't think the 'injection' of most of the stylistic traits of 'rock' will ever, fully, be integrated into 'classical' and also work well. More likely, a revised and renewed technique will find it more 'accepted' within the classical context.

I am rarely, if ever, a fan of any transcriptions. That is all of what you have posted. I suppose in the 'legitimate' conservatory environment, it is an effective academic way to 'prove' that not all electric guitar players lack classical chops. Conversely, you here demonstrate only that you have classical guitar technique and own an electric guitar.

What these transcriptions do is impose a noticeably modern sound, inevitably associated with pop, or more sophisticated, Jazz, upon repertoire from earlier eras, and they sound like living anachronisms - regardless of how 'straight' you played them, we all recognize 'electric guitar.' Because of that, they are each, upon hearing, inadvertently funny.

Better to find compositions written For The Instrument, either writing your own, or commissioning other 'classical' composers to write directly for the instrument and its capabilities.


----------



## Ravndal

Electric guitar in a orchestra? Oufh... I hope the day never comes.

Edit: I mean, i hope i dont experience it


----------



## Renaissance

Ravndal said:


> Electric guitar in a orchestra? Oufh... I hope the day never comes.
> 
> Edit: I mean, i hope i dont experience it


It already came. And yet there is more to come.


----------



## Ravndal

I will do my best to ignore this fact!


----------



## Renaissance

Ravndal said:


> I will do my best to ignore this fact!


Well, we may ignore the fact, but the fact doesn't ignore us :lol: These days every noise is considered music. It is quite sad.


----------



## norman bates

Ravndal said:


> I will do my best to ignore this fact!


it's strange to hear something that seems so close-minded from one who have that avatar.

Anyway, an example of an orchestra made of electric guitars (neoshredder listen to this!):


----------



## starthrower

The advantage to electric guitar is volume and sustain, so I'm not in favor of the tone used by the guy in those YouTube clips. I don't like electric guitar for classical or baroque era music either. I think it sounds best in a romantic or contemporary context, and with some lyrical music. The first piece I heard was by Steve Howe back in 1979. He's obviously not at the same high technical level of the guitarist playing with the pianist, but I prefer his tone and lyrical approach. Maybe not for purists, but I'm not one.


----------



## Ravndal

norman bates said:


> it's strange to hear something that seems so close-minded from one who have that avatar.
> 
> Anyway, an example of an orchestra made of electric guitars (neoshredder listen to this!):


Ah. But you dont understand. Im very open minded. The thing is that im not a big fan of guitars. They suit some music. But They are far from my favorite. And i want classical music as an acoustic only genre. Mainly because it is The only acoustic genre i listen to.


----------



## starthrower

^^^^^^^^^^^
So why are you here if you don't like guitars?


----------



## BurningDesire

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Has anyone written a concerto for electric guitar? I mean a concerto in the traditional sense; solo and orchestra, fast-slow-fast movements or more or less.


Yngwie Malmsteen wrote a long concerto for electric guitar, its very traditional sounding. I find alot of his music pretty boring tbh. You'd probably love it.


----------



## BurningDesire

Renaissance said:


> Well, we may ignore the fact, but the fact doesn't ignore us :lol: These days every noise is considered music. It is quite sad.


Yeah! How dare composers actually be imaginative! We should never have strayed from strict voice-led tonal music. Good old safe music. It really is the only kind of music people can actually enjoy. Anybody who says they like chromaticism or dissonance or noisier sounds is really just lying to themselves and you. Tonality is the one true way, and even daring to stretch that with chromaticism is too far. Mozart was a harlot, with all those sleazy chromaticisms in his music. Bach was even worse, with all the sleazy, scummy chromaticism and modulation.


----------



## jani

BurningDesire said:


> Yngwie Malmsteen wrote a long concerto for electric guitar, its very traditional sounding. I find alot of his music pretty boring tbh. You'd probably love it.


This piece is pretty good.
Yngwie has the best "feel" over the instrument that i have ever heard.
WARNING LOADS OF SHREDDING.


----------



## KenOC

BurningDesire said:


> Mozart was a harlot, with all those sleazy chromaticisms in his music.


Right on. There are a few times in his late symphonies where he even flirts with bitonality, trying secretly to corrupt us. What a sleazebag. Needless to say, I have returned those CDs. Ditto the Eroica, where Beethoven plays the tonic and dominant chord *at the same time* and in _two different _places! And he thought we wouldn't notice. Again, back it goes!

BD, thanks for telling it like it is.


----------



## BurningDesire

jani said:


> This piece is pretty good.
> Yngwie has the best "feel" over the instrument that i have ever heard.
> WARNING LOADS OF SHREDDING.


Woo! He can sure play those scales real fast 

Honestly, its not too bad, but it just doesn't impress me much. I tend to prefer electric guitarist/composers who's writing on the instrument isn't simply a vehicle for showing off, and alot of the guitar shredders just come off that way to me in much of their work.


----------



## jani

BurningDesire said:


> Woo! He can sure play those scales real fast
> 
> Honestly, its not too bad, but it just doesn't impress me much. I tend to prefer electric guitarist/composers who's writing on the instrument isn't simply a vehicle for showing off, and alot of the guitar shredders just come off that way to me in much of their work.


Yngwie is showing off yes, but his playing isn't only about speed as some people say.
Do you hear his vibrato. It's the best electric guitar vibrato ever, also his "finger tone" i great.


----------



## Glissando

Glenn Branca's guitar symphonies are pretty great. Usually they have involved about ten or eleven guitarists, plus a bassist and drummer. This isn't just done to get a 'big' sound. The layering of chords strummed by that many amplified guitars creates a new type of music, which verges on microtonalism and electroacoustic weirdness (stuff like Xenakis and Ligeti are in a similar vein). The unique qualities of the instrument are brought out. In pretty much everything I have heard by Branca, no extra distortion or stylized effects are used. It's all done with clean tones because he wants the notes to come through cleanly.


----------



## jani




----------



## BurningDesire

jani said:


> Yngwie is showing off yes, but his playing isn't only about speed as some people say.
> Do you hear his vibrato. It's the best electric guitar vibrato ever, also his "finger tone" i great.


Eh... I'm not really a fan of the vibrato nor his guitar tone tbh. I prefer the vibrato of somebody like... Mike Oldfield. Or the the extremely wide (almost trill-like) vibrato of Hendrix.


----------



## aleazk

BurningDesire said:


> I think the playing is beautiful, though I thought the tone was a tad noisy (buzzing of the strings against the frets being audible) for what it felt like you were going for. Its sort of a tricky situation for electric guitarists and composers/arrangers wishing to utilize it, because there are lots of people who stereotype it as the rock n' roll instrument (much in the same way accordion is stereotyped as the 'polka' instrument), and on the other side, when they just use the most simple set-up of the instrument, just a clean signal, you get people complaining about not taking full advantage of the instrument's possibilities. You don't see people complaining when you write a piano piece that doesn't use all the crazy extended techniques that Crumb, Cage, and Cowell invented. The electric guitar is an instrument with IMMENSE possibilities, and some of those are accessed simply through the mechanical aspects of the instrument and a clean signal to the amplifier, and those can be incredibly beautiful ^_^
> 
> And your performances were beautiful~


I think you have an interesting point. I like the electric guitar particularly when extended techniques are used. I'm always surprised by all the colorful noises you can get:






I love that introduction (how he uses the feedback)


----------



## neoshredder

Yngwie was best during his early years. He injured his right wrist which changed the way he had to play. The four albums that are his best imo are No Parole From Rock and Roll, Rising Force, Marching Out, and Trilogy. After that, his guitar playing dropped imo. I guess you could argue that Odyssey was his best songwriting ever. But a huge difference in guitar playing quality compared to Trilogy. I'm more a fan of the younger Yngwie.


----------



## Clump

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFh7LAFel4w#t=4m5s

As long as not too much of this happens, I'm in favour of it.


----------



## norman bates

malmsteen represent all i consider bad in music, i think that his music is pop music of the lowest quality, his "classical" pieces are classical as much as kenny g is a jazz musician.


----------



## Arsakes

It should sounds like Hawaiian Guitar if it's going to be in any classical orchestra or if be played like Rock or Metal Electric Guitar it sucks in any classical orchestra.

How do you want to play Electric Guitar there when its noises hinders hearing the sound of (for example) Violin, Oboe and Basson?

Also don't mix things with each other. This thing you're creating is Rock. As a rule its sound shouldn't DOMINATE the music it is just part of it. I like the use of Electric Guitar in some Blues songs. The point is this principle is honored in most of them:

"_Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music_." - W. A. Mozart

Ave Amadeus!


----------



## norman bates

Arsakes said:


> Also don't mix things with each other. This thing you're creating is Rock.


An electric guitar is just an instrument and you can use it in thousand different ways, it's just a matter of fantasy and taste. And classical music doesn't mean violins and piano or just acoustic instruments.


----------



## Arsakes

norman bates said:


> An electric guitar is just an instrument and you can use it in thousand different ways, it's just a matter of fantasy and taste. And classical music doesn't mean violins and piano or just acoustic instruments.


Yes it does.
The basis of classical music (European, Middle Eastern, Eastern) is acoustic instruments. If we include Electronic instrument in music like them, they're not *classical* anymore. They're called Electronic or New Jazz.


----------



## Renaissance

BurningDesire said:


> Yeah! How dare composers actually be imaginative! We should never have strayed from strict voice-led tonal music. Good old safe music. It really is the only kind of music people can actually enjoy. Anybody who says they like chromaticism or dissonance or noisier sounds is really just lying to themselves and you. Tonality is the one true way, and even daring to stretch that with chromaticism is too far. Mozart was a harlot, with all those sleazy chromaticisms in his music. Bach was even worse, with all the sleazy, scummy chromaticism and modulation.


Is not about chromaticism, as music without these chromatics is really boring, but you know...they must be used carefully and with talent, not random. Even renaissance composers like Gesualdo used a lot of chromatic lines, and it's not bad at all.  Doesn't matter what you use, but how you use it.


----------



## Renaissance

Arsakes said:


> "_Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music_." - W. A. Mozart
> 
> Ave Amadeus!


And they tell us that guys like Schoenberg and Cage were original :lol: It was all known back then, and avoided for obvious reasons. There is nothing new in music, only trends.


----------



## norman bates

Arsakes said:


> Yes it does.
> The basis of classical music (European, Middle Eastern, Eastern) is acoustic instruments.


Just because then electricity didn't exist, but a lot of classical composers in the twentieth century has used it. If Mozart, Bach and Beethoven have lived in this century they probably have used electric instruments.



Arsakes said:


> If we include Electronic instrument in music like them, they're not *classical* anymore. They're called Electronic or New Jazz.


really? So country blues music is classical music just because it's acoustic.


----------



## Ravndal

starthrower said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> So why are you here if you don't like guitars?


Just sharing my opinion..


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> I'm hoping Contemporary Classical makes a comeback. After Ligeti's death, there haven't been any big names to replace him. We need something big. Maybe it's dying? Hope not.


"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." ~ Mark Twain

It was Ligeti who died and was buried, not contemporary classical music and all its living composers.


----------



## PetrB

Arsakes said:


> Yes it does.
> The basis of classical music (European, Middle Eastern, Eastern) is acoustic instruments. If we include Electronic instrument in music like them, they're not *classical* anymore. They're called Electronic or New Jazz.


Sorry, but due to a lack of information, you're just flat out incorrect.

Instruments are neutral: they do not define genre -- at all.

The only thing which defines genre is the style of writing, not the instrument.

Violins are used to play the Beethoven and Berg Violin Concerti, and those same instruments are used to play Jazz and Bluegrass music. Ditto the breadth of genres for which pianos are routinely used, classical, jazz, ragtime, show music, etc.

There is no such thing as 'a classical instrument.'

By your definition, with all acoustic instruments as normally presented in a traditional array of 'symphonic instruments,' almost any film score would be 'classical' music. We all know the incidental music for "Star Wars," and even its reduced suite arranged by its composer for concert presentation, is 'film music,' not 'classical music.' By your definition, the Berg Violin Concerto would be 'jazz' because there is a saxophone in the wind section.

Sure, instruments come to be _associated_ with a genre, but that is a mere association, not a law.

Vibraphone is often enough a regular modern orchestral member and is used in some modern and contemporary classical pieces: with its _electric_ rotating "Butterfly" discs to make vibrato, it did not exist in the form we now know until 1928.

The Ondes Martinot is a more purely 'electronic' sounding _electric_ instrument, invented in 1928, which often figures prominently in works by modern classical (indisputably classical, btw) composer Olivier Messiaen.
Messiaen ~ Trois petites liturgies de la présence divine













Here is John Adams' "Dharma at Big Sur" a contemporary classical concertante work for six-string _electric violin_ and large orchestra... the soloist, Tracy Silverman, is a graduate of The Juilliard School.
... youtube ad alert, brief :-/









At some point, a 'legitimate' contemporary classical work will successfully incorporate or feature as soloist, an electric guitar.

ADD P.s. Who is anyone, what position and qualifications do they have to hold, whether professional musician or layman, to qualify that they have a right 'to pronounce' any instrument as an 'illegitimate' instrument for any particular genre?


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> malmsteen represent all i consider bad in music, i think that his music is pop music of the lowest quality, his "classical" pieces are classical as much as kenny g is a jazz musician.


So what "classical" music means for you ? What is of the highest quality ? Modern noise ? I am not a fan of this guy, Malmsteen, but he certainly play what can be called music unlike others "hyper-supra-illuminated" supra-human beings.


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> Just because then electricity didn't exist, but a lot of classical composers in the twentieth century has used it. If Mozart, Bach and Beethoven have lived in this century they probably have used electric instruments.


Are you so sure about it ? Noise was available in their times too, even though not electric/electronic noise.


----------



## Chrythes

Renaissance said:


> Are you so sure about it ? Noise was available in their times too, even though not electric/electronic noise.


But this is not what the discussion is about, the point here is the usage of the electric guitar in the setting of classical music. It's what sounds/timbre you can achieve with this instrument, not necessarily the music that you produce with it. If you consider its timbre in itself as noise, well, then be it, though I don't understand why it should be so radical considering the wide possibilities of sounds you can produce with this instrument.


----------



## Renaissance

PetrB said:


> Sorry, but due to a lack of information, you're just flat out incorrect.
> 
> Instruments are neutral: they do not define genre -- at all.
> 
> The only thing which defines genre is the style of writing, not the instrument.


Not in a direct manner, but certainly traditional classical music was all about harmony, ennoblement of the spirit and stuff like these. It was not decided what instruments should be part of this genre because they never thought that this world will become so crazy to consider that classical music can be made on electric guitars, electronic synths and all the other crazy crap they use. Of course that a genre is anything you want it to be, so you can have an entirely orchestra with electric noise if you want, but it's wrong to call such "music" classical, because it is not. Just because it is not mentioned what instruments should be used doesn't mean that old masters would have allowed such things.


----------



## Renaissance

Chrythes said:


> But this is not what the discussion is about, the point here is the usage of the electric guitar in the setting of classical music. It's what sounds/timbre you can achieve with this instrument, not necessarily the music that you produce with it. If you consider its timbre in itself as noise, well, then be it, though I don't understand why it should be so radical considering the wide possibilities of sounds you can produce with this instrument.


Not any noise is music. I wouldn't be so radical if these kind of things were simply named "noise explorations" instead of "classical music". We must not blend everything. Why ? Because what is hard to achieve will be shadowed by non-value crap. This is what happening with classical music today.


----------



## Clump

What separates synthesizers, electric guitars etc from traditional classical instruments other than tradition? What is it that makes it "noise" and inappropriate for use in classical?

And I don't see how writing for electric instruments is any easier than writing for acoustic ones.


----------



## Renaissance

Clump said:


> What separates synthesizers, electric guitars etc from traditional classical instruments other than tradition? What is it that makes it "noise" and inappropriate for use in classical?


This is the strongest arguments for such kinds of movements in art. You just extrapolate some abstract things and you got that everything is possible. Everything is possible, only in theory. We should not forget that music is supposed to touch your senses, like Beethoven said it is the mediator between the sensual and spiritual life. Music composed only on "cerebral"/abstract principles is not music, why people don't understand that ? Music is not philosophy, music is even higher. It touches your senses and goes beyond them, makes a higher sense and coherence. Modern music on the other side, is only provoking confusion and ugliness. I am really not interested in making "void" philosophy build on abstract extrapolations from misunderstood sciences. I experience music as it is, naturally, not through non-sense philosophic ideas. Music is a moral law, a reality in itself. You can't just consider what is music and what is not, it's already as it is. These ideas are very misleading because turns everything into artificial. We are on the way of becoming robots. This alienation is all due to the "modern" thinking. Because in its attempts of being "intellectual" destroys all that's natural. You can't apply mathematics in everything.


----------



## Chrythes

Renaissance said:


> Not any noise is music. I wouldn't be so radical if these kind of things were simply named "noise explorations" instead of "classical music". We must not blend everything. Why ? Because what is hard to achieve will be shadowed by non-value crap. This is what happening with classical music today.


Why are you jumping into this "modern equals crap" discussion? My post wasn't about that at all. I was trying to understand if you consider the instrument in itself as noise, because this is what the thread is about -"Electric guitar in a role of classical instrument". That's it. if you really do hate the instrument or the music - then fine, you had your say, but please, don't derail this thread into another pointless debate about the merits of contemporary classical music.


----------



## Renaissance

Chrythes said:


> Why are you jumping into this "modern equals crap" discussion? My post wasn't about that at all. I was trying to understand if you consider the instrument in itself as noise, because this is what the thread is about -"Electric guitar in a role of classical instrument". That's it. if you really do hate the instrument or the music - then fine, you had your say, but please, don't derail this thread into another pointless debate about the merits of contemporary classical music.


It's obvious I hate the instrument IN classical music domain ! I have nothing with it in rock/blues/jazz. These discussions aren't pointless at all, because all these fashions are just derived from this modern thinking. If electric guitar has a future in classical music is all to be seen. But we need to go deep down into modern ideologies to really see if these things are even worthy of trying.

Exploring music with "unmusical" elements is as wrong as eating uneatable food. It is a useless exploration.


----------



## Chrythes

Renaissance said:


> It's obvious I hate the instrument IN classical music domain ! I have nothing with it in rock/blues/jazz. These discussions aren't pointless at all, because all these fashions are just derived from this modern thinking.


You have 3 threads that turned into discussions about the merits of classical contemporary music. Can you spare this one and just leave it to people who actually are interested in this merging of styles/instruments?
We already now you hate it, we already know nothing will change your opinion. I doubt we need to hear it every time someone opens a thread about contemporary classical music/composers.


----------



## Clump

Let's do that then. Why isn't it worth trying?

I don't see what your last post had to do with electric guitars. Why wouldn't well-written, inspired music be able to "touch your senses" if it's played on electric guitar? What's special about electric guitars that makes them unable to express things that acoustic instruments can?


----------



## Renaissance

Clump said:


> I don't see what your last post had to do with electric guitars. Why wouldn't well-written, inspired music be able to "touch your senses" if it's played on electric guitar?
> _______________________________________________________________
> What's special about electric guitars that makes them unable to express things that acoustic instruments can?


Because those who seek to introduce electric guitar into classical music won't play baroque music on it, but only noise for the noise's sake. Because those who can appreciate a good old traditional classical piece don't need extra-noise for it.

__________________________________________________________________

The way they produce sound, their wave geometry which makes everything sound dissonant even if you play perfect interval on it, for example. It has a kind of unforeseeable sound, and gives music a sense of randomness.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> Are you so sure about it ?


i cannot be sure, maybe they would not use cars and electric light and they would keep using only carriages and candles. But i think that there's a good possibility that as intelligent men of their time (and often looking ahead of their time) they would not renounce to the possibilities of new instruments, as they did in their time.



Renaissance said:


> Noise was available in their times too, even though not electric/electronic noise.


electronic music now means noise?


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> Right on. There are a few times in his late symphonies where he even flirts with bitonality, trying secretly to corrupt us. What a sleazebag. Needless to say, I have returned those CDs. Ditto the Eroica, where Beethoven plays the tonic and dominant chord *at the same time* and in _two different _places! And he thought we wouldn't notice. Again, back it goes!
> 
> BD, thanks for telling it like it is.


You got it bro! ;o


----------



## BurningDesire

Renaissance said:


> Because those who seek to introduce electric guitar into classical music won't play baroque music on it, but only noise for the noise's sake. Because those who can appreciate a good old traditional classical piece don't need extra-noise for it.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> 
> The way they produce sound, their wave geometry which makes everything sound dissonant even if you play perfect interval on it, for example. It has a kind of unforeseeable sound, and gives music a sense of randomness.


Do you even understand how an electric guitar works? You know, if I hooked up a harpsichord or cello to an amp and ran it through a particular box, or turned it up loud enough, it would distort too, or I could run it through clean, and it would just sound different, not distorted. Do you really think a distorted guitar sounds noisey? XD


----------



## Renaissance

Looking ahead of your time doesn't means to change what it does not need to be changed. As is the case in music. Things are not so simple, everything needs to be done with wisdom and equilibrium. Every case of progress is special, you can't just compare the scientific progress with the progress in arts, nor you can think them similarly.

Electronic music is not noise. Electronic music can be noise, just as an classical orchestra can make noise. The thing with electronic music is that it lacks the expressive capability that music made on real acoustic instruments posses. Otherwise, there is everything fine with it, as long as it's composed properly.


----------



## BurningDesire

Renaissance said:


> The thing with electronic music is that it lacks the expressive capability that music made on real acoustic instruments posses. Otherwise, there is everything fine with it, as long as it's composed properly.


Its like you can't go five minutes without saying something completely ridiculous!


----------



## Carpenoctem

Renaissance said:


> *The thing with electronic music is that it lacks the expressive capability that music made on real acoustic instruments posses.* Otherwise, there is everything fine with it, as long as it's composed properly.


That's not true at all.


----------



## Renaissance

BurningDesire said:


> Do you even understand how an electric guitar works? You know, if I hooked up a harpsichord or cello to an amp and ran it through a particular box, or turned it up loud enough, it would distort too, or I could run it through clean, and it would just sound different, not distorted. Do you really think a distorted guitar sounds noisey? XD


I know how an electric guitar works, but the wave geometry of its sound is really different and artificial, can't be compared with the natural sound of a harpsichord or acoustic guitar. Of course you can make them "electric" too, but the acoustics, the sound itself is a whole different story. Electric guitars, as used in rock/metal make really irregular wave forms, and significantly changes of frequencies of the notes played in an unforeseeable way. And if you play a chord, even a consonant one, on a highly distorted electric guitar you have rather multiple dissonant chords playing random, more or less subtly, depending on that setting do you use how good your ear is.


----------



## Clump

Renaissance said:


> The thing with electronic music is that it lacks the expressive capability that music made on real acoustic instruments posses. Otherwise, there is everything fine with it, as long as it's composed properly.


Have you ever seen an ondes Martenot or theremin being played?


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> Electronic music is not noise. Electronic music can be noise, just as an classical orchestra can make noise. *The thing with electronic music is that it lacks the expressive capability that music made on real acoustic instruments posses*. Otherwise, there is everything fine with it, as long as it's composed properly.


It's like you're just begging for a flame war. Have you even studied electronic music and sound synthesis?


----------



## Renaissance

BurningDesire said:


> Its like you can't go five minutes without saying something completely ridiculous!


Oh...yes. Please try playing any Beethoven's sonata in midi format. Use everything you want, it will sound hollow and mechanic. And this only with piano. Try it with strings. How realistic can you get ? Do you think that an electronic "orchestra" can make the same effects as a real orchestra ?


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> It's like you're just begging for a flame war. Have you even studied electronic music and sound synthesis?


Please, transpose any sonata into an electronic music software and hear for yourself how it sounds.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> The thing with electronic music is that it lacks the expressive capability that music made on real acoustic instruments posses. Otherwise, there is everything fine with it, as long as it's composed properly.


well, often synthetizers have some limits in terms of dynamics (but there are also acoustic instruments like the harpsichord with the same problem, i have to think that you don't like any music written for harpsichord?), but they have infinite possibilities in terms of diversity of sounds, and there's anything bad about it.


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> Oh...yes. Please try playing any Beethoven's sonata in midi format. Use everything you want, it will sound hollow and mechanic. And this only with piano. Try it with strings. How realistic can you get ? Do you think that an electronic "orchestra" can make the same effects as a real orchestra ?


How about a Chopin nocturne?

__
https://soundcloud.com/propellerhead%2Fradical-piano-chopin-noct-op


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> I know how an electric guitar works, but the wave geometry of its sound is really different and artificial, can't be compared with the natural sound of a harpsichord or acoustic guitar.


there's anything natural about an harpsichord unless there's a tree that produce the instrument, it's a technological product.


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> well, often synthetizers have some limits in terms of dynamics (but there are also acoustic instruments like the harpsichord with the same problem, i have to think that you don't like any music written for harpsichord?), but they have infinite possibilities in terms of diversity of sounds, and there's anything bad about it.


Exactly, you got my point ! But not only in dynamics, but frequencies too. It is really really hard to reproduce the sound of an organ for example even on an audiophile system, recorded with the best technology. It won't sound real for a trained ear. This is what I was trying to say that it lack some capability of expression. If you compose electronic music without a keyboard it will sound plain and flat. With keyboard is ok, but only for certain sounds.


----------



## BurningDesire

Renaissance said:


> I know how an electric guitar works, but the wave geometry of its sound is really different and artificial, can't be compared with the natural sound of a harpsichord or acoustic guitar. Of course you can make them "electric" too, but the acoustics, the sound itself is a whole different story. Electric guitars, as used in rock/metal make really irregular wave forms, and significantly changes of frequencies of the notes played in an unforeseeable way. And if you play a chord, even a consonant one, on a highly distorted electric guitar you have rather multiple dissonant chords playing random, more or less subtly, depending on that setting do you use how good your ear is.


A clean guitar tone is far from a bizarre wave-form, no more bizarre than any other instrument. Distortion clips the peaks and valleys of the waveform, changing its shape. Its sound becomes more rich, comparable to other instruments close to the square-wave timbre such as the clarinet. Another thing that occurs when a sound is distorted, is that the overtones are brought out heavily, creating a brighter sound. Do you dislike the pipe organ?


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> Exactly, you got my point ! But not only in dynamics, but frequencies too. It is really really hard to reproduce the sound of an organ for example even on an audiophile system, recorded with the best technology. It won't sound real for a trained ear. This is what I was trying to say that it lack some capability of expression. If you compose electronic music without a keyboard it will sound plain and flat. With keyboard is ok, but only for certain sounds.


that is not "lack of expression", even a violin can't reproduce the sound of a piano, so what? Electronic music is a lot more than the emulation of existing instruments.


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> How about a Chopin nocturne?
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/propellerhead%2Fradical-piano-chopin-noct-op


Nice, but it doesn't fool me. And this is pretty much the best you can do with virtual pianos. I have Reason 4 too, it is very good.

But have to tried with a symphony ? It is merely listenable.


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> there's anything natural about an harpsichord unless there's a tree that produce the instrument, it's a technological product.


It is a string that vibrates in its natural way, after its law.


----------



## Kopachris

Kopachris said:


> How about a Chopin nocturne?
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/propellerhead%2Fradical-piano-chopin-noct-op


About the plugin that was used, and with more examples, demonstrating *the superiority of electronic synthesizers in range of expression over a single acoustic instrument*:








> Radical Piano gives you three sampled pianos paired with the technology to make an infinite number of your own. Thanks to its blend between sampling technology and physical modeling, Radical Piano is a lightweight, flexible, and bendable piano instrument that provides sounds for every situation and every song, from ultra-clean to creakingly natural - and beyond.
> 
> With Radical Piano you can do things that are otherwise impossible; not only in multi-gigabyte sample libraries but even in the recording of actual acoustic pianos. Do you wish your close mic'd grand piano sounded just a little bit more like a vintage mono upright piano? Use the microphone blend to create a hybrid sound. Route audio, like a vocal, through the jacks on the back of Radical Piano to hear it resonate the strings as if you had recorded piano and vocals together live, in the same room. What if with the turn of a knob you could transform the tonal characteristics of your piano, shifting from a soft intimate performance to a bright aggressive instrument that will cut through your mix? We've got that knob and it's called "Character."


----------



## BurningDesire

Renaissance said:


> Exactly, you got my point ! But not only in dynamics, but frequencies too. It is really really hard to reproduce the sound of an organ for example even on an audiophile system, recorded with the best technology. It won't sound real for a trained ear. This is what I was trying to say that it lack some capability of expression. If you compose electronic music without a keyboard it will sound plain and flat. With keyboard is ok, but only for certain sounds.


You can say the electronic music can't do certain things acoustic music can, but then you also have to say that it has modes of expression that acoustic music can never accomplish. Acoustic music lacks the capability of expression :3


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> It is a string that vibrates in its natural way, after its law.


So is the string of an electric guitar.


----------



## BurningDesire

Renaissance said:


> It is a string that vibrates in its natural way, after its law.


and the speaker cabinet vibrates in its natural way.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> It is a string that vibrates in its natural way, after its law.


as in a electric guitar, but the electric guitar has no limits in term of dynamics.


----------



## Renaissance

BurningDesire said:


> A clean guitar tone is far from a bizarre wave-form, no more bizarre than any other instrument. Distortion clips the peaks and valleys of the waveform, changing its shape. Its sound becomes more rich, comparable to other instruments close to the square-wave timbre such as the clarinet. Another thing that occurs when a sound is distorted, is that the overtones are brought out heavily, creating a brighter sound. Do you dislike the pipe organ?


Very well, you know these thing, and consider that you can do with a electric guitar what you can do with an acoustic one ? Of course, nothing wrong with the clean tones. But distorted guitars really don't reproduce the sound of the music itself. The air column vibrate naturally in a pipe organ, according to the laws of mechanics, no others parameters are involved here.


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> So is the string of an electric guitar.


Yes ! The string, but what you hear is not the sound of the string, but a modified version of it through speakers.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> But distorted guitars really don't reproduce the sound of the music itself. The air column vibrate naturally in a pipe organ, according to the laws of mechanics, no others parameters are involved here.


that's your problem with the sound of a distortion, not something bad in itself.


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> Very well, you know these thing, and consider that you can do with a electric guitar what you can do with an acoustic one ? Of course, nothing wrong with the clean tones. But distorted guitars really don't reproduce the sound of the music itself. The air column vibrate naturally in a pipe organ, according to the laws of mechanics, no others parameters are involved here.


And now we're getting to the heart of your philosophy: Natural = good, unnatural = bad. In this case, wave forms and their harmonics. However, just because the wave forms and harmonics are produced artificially doesn't mean they lack expressive ability. Logically, because they are produced artificially, there is a much wider range of possible expression because certain waveforms which would be prohibited by the "laws of mechanics" are no longer prohibited. Emancipation of dissonance!

Just admit defeat already--this is getting tiring.


----------



## Renaissance

BurningDesire said:


> and the speaker cabinet vibrates in its natural way.


But there are limits, not all the harmonic series are clearly represented in a speaker. The sound is evident different from those of acoustical instruments, which only obey the laws of Newton. When electricity involved, and wave programming, things are different.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> Yes ! The string, but what you hear is not the sound of the string, but a modified version of it through speakers.


even in a acoustic instrument you don't hear the sound of the string, you hear a modified version after it's amplified by the wood and its particular shape.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> It is a string that vibrates in its natural way, after its law.


this goes to eleven

(sorry but you have already said that, and we have say that in a electric guitar it works in the same way BUT without limitations of dynamics!)


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> And now we're getting to the heart of your philosophy: Natural = good, unnatural = bad. In this case, wave forms and their harmonics. However, just because the wave forms and harmonics are produced artificially doesn't mean they lack expressive ability. Logically, because they are produced artificially, there is a much wider range of possible expression because certain waveforms which would be prohibited by the "laws of mechanics" are no longer prohibited. Emancipation of dissonance!
> 
> Just admit defeat already--this is getting tiring.


You are bothered because I said that it lacks expressive ability ? Ok, it doesn't lack expressive ability, it just posses other kinds of expressive ability. Happy now ?

Not really wider range, they are no wider, just different. And if we speak of electronic instruments, things here are calculated, programmed by algorithms so not really wider I would say.


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> But there are limits, not all the harmonic series are clearly represented in a speaker. The sound is evident different from those of acoustical instruments, which only obey the laws of Newton. When electricity involved, and wave programming, things are different.


The limits enforced by the speaker are exactly the same as the limits enforced by the speaker when you play any recording--the limits enforced by digital audio compression are generally greater than the limits created by the speaker. An amplified and distorted electric guitar is amplified and distorted for precisely the effect that it gives. How can that be at all inferior to, say, using extended technique on an acoustic instrument (e.g. playing with the back of the bow rather than the hair)?


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> this goes to eleven
> 
> (sorry but you have already said that, and we have say that in a electric guitar it works in the same way BUT without limitations of dynamics!)


Actually there is no limitation in dynamics, you play the strings of electric guitar as you play the strings of a normal instrument. But the alterations which come after the vibrations of the string is transformed into electric signal, and then transformed again into acoustic signal (speaker) make the whole difference. There is a conversion of the initial vibration, any conversion loses the initial information. (I don't know other terms in english to sound more "scientific")


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> You are bothered because I said that it lacks expressive ability ? Ok, it doesn't lack expressive ability, it just posses other kinds of expressive ability. Happy now ?
> 
> Not really wider range, they are no wider, just different. And if we speak of electronic instruments, things here are calculated, programmed by algorithms so not really wider I would say.


Nope, still not happy. Let's take this one step at a time: Why does calculation and algorithms have anything to do with lack of expressive capability?


----------



## millionrainbows

Pavel said:


> Dear forumers. I would like to invite you to watch and discuss several videos.
> 
> Important! Here's no even a hint on rock/pop/jazz versions etc., with no overdrive, chorus and any other effects. This is an academic music in its pure form. El. guitar just trying on the role of academic instrument.


Here is what I consider an "appropriate" use of the electric guitar. _Orchestral Duke of Prunes_ by *Frank Zappa*, more or less a "concerto" in which the guitar is contrasted, sometimes integrated into the orchestral texture. Note, however, that there is a rock drummer and bass player. This "rock band/orchestra" is appropriate, and has been tried before with less success (*The Nice*/_Five Bridges_ and *Deep Purple:* _Concerto for Group and Orchestra_).






The videos in the OP show a player who is more-or-less in the jazz paradigm of electric guitar.

The jazz electric guitar paradigm was created to force the guitar to fill a pianistic role, both harmonically and melodically emulating the piano, and eschewing its inherent ability to bend notes and become a more vocal solo voice; *Zappa* does not fall prey to this. _*"You are what you is."*_


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> The limits enforced by the speaker are exactly the same as the limits enforced by the speaker when you play any recording--the limits enforced by digital audio compression are generally greater than the limits created by the speaker.
> _______________________________________________________________
> An amplified and distorted electric guitar is amplified and distorted for precisely the effect that it gives. How can that be at all inferior to, say, using extended technique on an acoustic instrument (e.g. playing with the back of the bow rather than the hair)?


This is quite clear for everyone, I didn't deny it. But the whole thing it that you will hear that orchestra with electric guitars live. While a traditional orchestra doesn't use any speaker.
______________________________________________________________
I don't see why we need to make this longer. Things are clear : The electrically-modified sound is different from the acoustic sound. Not inferior, not superior, not wider, not narrower, only different ranges, different stories, different waveforms, and so on. For me the sound of electric guitar is to strange in classical music, doesn't fit what classical music is all about. I am interested in explorations and avant-garde things, I had enough of these. They are different things, for different people.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> Actually there is no limitation in dynamics, you play the strings of electric guitar as you play the strings of a normal instrument. But the alterations which come after the vibrations of the string is transformed into electric signal, and then transformed again into acoustic signal (speaker) make the whole difference. There is a conversion of the initial vibration, any conversion loses the initial information. (I don't know other terms in english to sound more "scientific")


Do you know what a equalizer is? You can emphasize any frequence you want. 
And still you say that the limit of an electronic instrument is that it has not the same expressivity but you don't say anything about the expressivity of an harpsichord. Don't you like to hear Bach on harpsichord?


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> Nope, still not happy. Let's take this one step at a time: Why does calculation and algorithms have anything to do with lack of expressive capability?


Because they sound foreign to the ear. Do you like Beethoven on midi, for example ? I do not. Hate it. And in a whole orchestra, these are really significant.


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> This is quite clear for everyone, I didn't deny it. But the whole thing it that you will hear that orchestra with electric guitars live. While a traditional orchestra doesn't use any speaker.
> ______________________________________________________________
> I don't see why we need to make this longer. Things are clear : The electrically-modified sound is different from the acoustic sound. Not inferior, not superior, not wider, not narrower, only different ranges, different stories, different waveforms, and so on. *For me the sound of electric guitar is to strange in classical music, doesn't fit what classical music is all about.* I am interested in explorations and avant-garde things, I had enough of these. They are different things, for different people.


Fine. I feel differently than what I bolded, but since I can't argue against "For me..." Try not to trip over an audio cable on your way out. It was fun.


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> Do you know what a equalizer is? You can emphasize any frequence you want.
> And still you say that the limit of an electronic instrument is that it has not the same expressivity but you don't say anything about the expressivity of an harpsichord. Don't you like to hear Bach on harpsichord?


I do know many, but you do not understand what I am trying to say, and it's not your fault because my english skills are poor.
All these modifications are programmed and way more simpler than anything nature can do. You can use equalizers as much as you want, there is a lack of response of the system for certain frequencies. You can cut/amplify these or other frequency, but it's all done in a very reductionist manner. It's like trying to solve advanced Fourier's series by hand. In every process you lose the initial information and alter it. This may not be significant with one instruments, but with 10-20 instruments playing in "harmony" (if there will be any harmony in that music) will make a difference.


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> Because they sound foreign to the ear. Do you like Beethoven on midi, for example ? I do not. Hate it. And in a whole orchestra, these are really significant.


So does atonality. I love atonality. And, no, I don't mind listening to synthesized classical music as long as it's well-made. And, yes, I would be interested in hearing a transcription a Beethoven symphony, not just for simulated acoustic instruments, but for genuine synthesized instruments with their own characters.


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> Fine. I feel differently than what I bolded, but since I can't argue against "For me..." *Try not to trip over an audio cable on your way out. It was fun.*


Very subtle :lol:


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> So does atonality. I love atonality. And, no, I don't mind listening to synthesized classical music as long as it's well-made. And, yes, I would be interested in hearing a transcription a Beethoven symphony, not just for simulated acoustic instruments, but for genuine synthesized instruments with their own characters.


Well, I do not love atonality. Interesting, fascinating can be, but not loved, not by me.






Though pretty advanced techniques here, I do find them very different.


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> I do know many, but you do not understand what I am trying to say, and it's not your fault because my english skills are poor.
> All these modifications are programmed and way more simpler than anything nature can do. You can use equalizers as much as you want, there is a lack of response of the system for certain frequencies. You can cut/amplify these or other frequency, but it's all done in a very reductionist manner. It's like trying to solve advanced Fourier's series by hand. In every process you lose the initial information and alter it. This may not be significant with one instruments, but with 10-20 instruments playing in "harmony" (if there will be any harmony in that music) will make a difference.


No. You will lose way more in the recording process turning sound into analog electronic waveforms into digital electronic waveforms into compressed digital data than you will ever lose through "lack of response." That's not the issue. The thing that makes an audible difference is noise. You're right in that most pieces of classical music "recorded" using sample libraries and electronic timing are too perfect--samples are too clean, the timing is usually too perfect, and the dynamics are often clumsy. But that's a fault of whoever creates the music--not an inherent fault of the synthesizer or the electronic format.



>


Holy...  A Moog synthesizer??!! Orchestral synthesis and sample libraries are way more advanced than that, nowadays. (The one in the following comparison isn't necessarily the most advanced, and should not be construed as such.)


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> I do know many, but you do not understand what I am trying to say, and it's not your fault because my english skills are poor.
> All these modifications are programmed and way more simpler than anything nature can do. You can use equalizers as much as you want, there is a lack of response of the system for certain frequencies. You can cut/amplify these or other frequency, but it's all done in a very reductionist manner. It's like trying to solve advanced Fourier's series by hand. In every process you lose the initial information and alter it. This may not be significant with one instruments, but with 10-20 instruments playing in "harmony" (if there will be any harmony in that music) will make a difference.


i have understood what you mean (and my english skills are poor too), but it doesn't make much sense, because you have so much advantages or other kinds, you have dynamics, you can emphasize frequencies, you can change the sound with effects from reverb/echo, wah, distortion, flanger, phaser, you can compress it... and you have an instrument that is incredibly expressive no matter how that sound is produced or transformed. 
The harpsichord is not really expressive (and i love it) but you keep saying that it's natural as it means something in terms of dynamics. 
By the way, if you listen a recording of Furtwangler conducting Beethoven you're not hearing the orchestra, but the sound recorded by electric devices (and with a very poor quality).


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> No. You will lose way more in the recording process turning sound into analog electronic waveforms into digital electronic waveforms into compressed digital data than you will ever lose through "lack of response." That's not the issue. The thing that makes an audible difference is noise. You're right in that most pieces of classical music "recorded" using sample libraries and electronic timing are too perfect--samples are too clean, the timing is usually too perfect, and the dynamics are often clumsy. But that's a fault of whoever creates the music--not an inherent fault of the synthesizer or the electronic format.


Yes, the conversion into digital format is the problem, because of the signal-to-noise ratio.

You are right too, not the fault of synthesizer as it can be used to make decent things, I just come and ask : Why bother so much with this ? We need musical and technical knowledge too and very much extra-work in order to be fine. Wouldn't be easier to play it traditionally ? I am not bothered by the fact that these experiments are made. I am though very bothered to imagine that these experiments will rule everything, and after 10-20 years you won't find any real orchestra because of these things.


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> Yes, the conversion into digital format is the problem, because of the signal-to-noise ratio.
> 
> You are right too, not the fault of synthesizer as it can be used to make decent things, I just come and ask : Why bother so much with this ? We need musical and technical knowledge too and very much extra-work in order to be fine. Wouldn't be easier to play it traditionally ?


It might be easier, but then some people like the challenge. Challenge helps us advance--eventually, I can see a point where it will be easier to achieve the same quality as a real orchestra (digital format limitations aside) through some combination of sampling and synthesis.

Also, I edited that post to add an example after you quoted it, just in case you didn't already notice it.


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> Holy...  A Moog synthesizer??!! Orchestral synthesis and sample libraries are way more advanced than that, nowadays. (The one in the following comparison isn't necessarily the most advanced, and should not be construed as such.)


It only mentions analog/subtractive synthesis, I don't know if it's Moog or not. But for me even the film music is a little to lifeless to listen to. On real orchestra, they are nice, otherwise I don't waste too much time with them.


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> By the way, if you listen a recording of Furtwangler conducting Beethoven you're not hearing the orchestra, but the sound recorded by electric devices (and with a very poor quality).


Because they were recorded in '40 ?


----------



## norman bates

Kopachris said:


> It might be easier, but then some people like the challenge. Challenge helps us advance--eventually, I can see a point where it will be easier to achieve the same quality as a real orchestra (digital format limitations aside) through some combination of sampling and synthesis.


but is not just that, trying to emulate an existing instrument (altough it can have it's advantages, like playing impossible rhythms) is just a little part of what one can do with electronic devices. How can one do this with an acoustic orchestra?






Or how can you do this kind of sounds with a classical guitar (this is an electric one filtered with electronic effects)?





It's simply impossible, maybe it's not the kind of stuff that Renaissance like but that's not the point, because one can do every kind of melodies but with different sounds.


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> It might be easier, but then some people like the challenge. Challenge helps us advance--eventually, I can see a point where it will be easier to achieve the same quality as a real orchestra (digital format limitations aside) through some combination of sampling and synthesis.
> 
> Also, I edited that post to add an example after you quoted it, just in case you didn't already notice it.


I like challenge, but it is really easy to ruin something especially when people seem so insensible to what really matters. Beethoven liked challenges, Wagner too, until we got to the contemporary music composers, which ruined everything up. When we seek to progress, we must be careful and look an eye to the past too, because otherwise we loose the contact with the reality and get to call every crap a piece of art. I strongly disagree with this kind of philosophy because it kills the artistic spirit. Anyone is an artist by these means. Where is the challenge here ? I do really like to be challenged, but only in productive ways. I wouldn't like a world where Beethoven is played by machines, cars are driven by robots, maybe even our partners will be robots too ! I do want to hear human emotion in music...imperfections ...these are the soul of music.


----------



## Kopachris

norman bates said:


> but is not just that, trying to emulate an existing instrument (altough it can have it's advantages, like playing impossible rhythms) is just a little part of what one can do with electronic devices. How can one do this with an acoustic orchestra?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or how can you do this kind of sounds with a classical guitar (this is an electric one filtered with electronic effects)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply impossible, maybe it's not the kind of stuff that Renaissance like but that's not the point, because one can do every kind of melodies but with different sounds.


That's not in contention anymore. I imagine Renaissance would say that "the expression is different, but not superior or inferior," and since "superior" and "inferior" is always going to be an opinion, it's impossible to argue with it.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> Because they are recorded in '40 ?


Yes, and the sound quality is very poor, so you don't like them?

But: and those recorded in the noughties are not however recorded with a certain amount of loss of quality? I mean, if it's so fundamental that the sound is "natural" any recorded sound is subject to the same kind of transformation in a way or another, isn't it?


----------



## Kopachris

Renaissance said:


> I wouldn't like a world where Beethoven is played by machines, cars are driven by robots, maybe even our partners will be robots too !


A lot of people would disagree with you.  I would, however, like a world where it's reasonable for a composer to be able to hear his own work synthesized with "quality" (in every meaning of the word) absolutely equal to a live orchestra without having to commission an orchestra, and live orchestras choose to play real instruments for their own challenge and to provide their own interpretation of a work.


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> Yes, and the sound quality is very poor, so you don't like them?
> 
> But: and those recorded in the noughties are not however recorded with a certain amount of loss of quality? I mean, if it's so fundamental that the sound is "natural" any recorded sound is subject to the same kind of transformation in a way or another, isn't it?


With the today's techniques I am not happy. I mean I wouldn't buy Beethoven's symphonies on these orchestras. When I will be no longer capable to distinguish between acoustic-electronic it will be fine. I am not a snob like those audiophiles who buy systems for 10.000 $ and can't make a difference between mp3 128Kb/sec and flac. But at today's level, I am not happy with electronics, nor with electric guitars. Well...with the electric guitar there is no way to change that, it not about the technical progress.


----------



## Renaissance

Kopachris said:


> A lot of people would disagree with you.  I would, however, like a world where it's reasonable for a composer to be able to hear his own work synthesized with "quality" (in every meaning of the word) absolutely equal to a live orchestra without having to commission an orchestra, and live orchestras choose to play real instruments for their own challenge and to provide their own interpretation of a work.


This would be ideal, but I doubt it will be the case. Electronics will rule the world (musical world too) and no orchestra will be available because no one is stupid to learn a musical instrument and wait to die poor. Who will pay them ? Actually, this phenomenon is already happening in popular music. I just want people to remain human. That's all.


----------



## norman bates

Renaissance said:


> This would be ideal, but I doubt it will be the case. Electronics will rule the world (musical world too) and no orchestra will be available because no one is stupid to learn a musical instrument and wait to die poor. Who will pay them ? Actually, this phenomenon is already happening in popular music. I just want people to remain human. That's all.


are we not human because we're typing on a keyboard instead of writing letters to each other?


----------



## BurningDesire

Renaissance said:


> This would be ideal, but I doubt it will be the case. Electronics will rule the world (musical world too) and no orchestra will be available because no one is stupid to learn a musical instrument and wait to die poor. Who will pay them ? Actually, this phenomenon is already happening in popular music. I just want people to remain human. That's all.


The person programming the synthesizer is the instrumentalist. A synthesizer, even a software one, is an instrument. Even still, it hasn't replaced other instruments, pretty much every recording you hear has instruments besides the synthesizer (or sampled sounds), even if its just the human voice. People will keep on playing instruments because its fun, whether they be classical virtuosos or rock amateurs or rock virtuosos or classical amateurs.


----------



## Renaissance

norman bates said:


> are we not human because we're typing on a keyboard instead of writing letters to each other?


This is not the same. The purpose of writing is to send and receive information, not to make an art by itself. Letters only need to be recognized, but music must be enjoyed and felt as human.


----------



## jani

Renaissance said:


> This would be ideal, but I doubt it will be the case. Electronics will rule the world (musical world too) and no orchestra will be available because *no one is stupid to learn a musical instrument and wait to die poor.* Who will pay them ? Actually, this phenomenon is already happening in popular music. I just want people to remain human. That's all.


I bet that no one starts to play an instrument because they just want to make lots of money.
If they would just want money they would use that time to study business/economics.


----------



## Renaissance

BurningDesire said:


> The person programming the synthesizer is the instrumentalist. A synthesizer, even a software one, is an instrument. Even still, it hasn't replaced other instruments, pretty much every recording you hear has instruments besides the synthesizer (or sampled sounds), even if its just the human voice. People will keep on playing instruments because its fun, whether they be classical virtuosos or rock amateurs or rock virtuosos or classical amateurs.


I know these things, I work with them too. Well...I fool around with them, better said. It may be a instrumentalist, or a technician doing just some adjustments on some scores/rolls/samples, anything. But not a real instrumentalist. They play the flute part on keyboard for example... I used such things in my humble compositions too, I can understand the basic principle, but still I would like people on instruments, solid instruments.


----------



## Renaissance

jani said:


> I bet that no one starts to play an instrument because they just want to make lots of money.
> If they would just want money they would use that time to study business/economics.


Not because they want money, of course, but because they can do something. They are appreciated, sought, society needs them. When electronic orchestras will be playing, they will have no purpose here. Who does need a painter/drawer/portraitist today, when we have cameras ?


----------



## Arsakes

PetrB said:


> Sorry, but due to a lack of information, you're just flat out incorrect.
> 
> Instruments are neutral: they do not define genre -- at all.
> 
> The only thing which defines genre is the style of writing, not the instrument.
> 
> Violins are used to play the Beethoven and Berg Violin Concerti, and those same instruments are used to play Jazz and Bluegrass music. Ditto the breadth of genres for which pianos are routinely used, classical, jazz, ragtime, show music, etc.


In our definition of classical music it's like what I said. 
Early Country is kind of folk(pop) music that has roots in 19th century. In our definition they're also classical!
Still what you want to produce is better called Electronic. 
It's plain disgrace to replace piano and violin by keyboard and Electric Guitar and still call your music Classical.
Nevermind...

Ok Renaissance is being bashed by possibly metalfreak lovers on a classical music website and he hardly gets any sympathy. That's a shame.

As I'm speechless I quote Mozart again!

"Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music." - W. A. Mozart


----------



## Renaissance

Thank you my friend, but it's a lost cause.  We accept it and hope there are still "ignorant" people out there, like us.  Not long ago I was thinking like them too... That's it, I am over with such discussions.


----------



## Arsakes

Appreciated. Thank you too.


----------



## norman bates

Arsakes said:


> "Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music." - W. A. Mozart


i have lost the passage where mozart talks of electronic or electric instruments.
Anyway, by your standards Hindemith was not a classical composer, but maybe a _metalfreak lover_.


----------



## Guest

jani said:


> Someone should do and electric guitar version of his piano sonatas. This version is good but not even close to the original.
> I would do it but with my recording gear i wouldn't be able to get a good tone.


Electric guitarists who use a pick can't play counterpoint. Notice that he only plays the main melodic line. I don't think any guitarist, classical or electric, could play the 3rd movement by himself. I have a version for solo classical guitar of the first movement that works reasonably well, but it's a poor substitute for the original.


----------



## KenOC

Arsakes said:


> "Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music." - W. A. Mozart


I believe Beethoven kept this quote on his desk, framed, while he wrote the Grosse Fuge. :lol:


----------



## PetrB

Renaissance said:


> Not in a direct manner, but certainly traditional classical music was all about harmony, ennoblement of the spirit and stuff like these. It was not decided what instruments should be part of this genre because they never thought that this world will become so crazy to consider that classical music can be made on electric guitars, electronic synths and all the other crazy crap they use. Of course that a genre is anything you want it to be, so you can have an entirely orchestra with electric noise if you want, but it's wrong to call such "music" classical, because it is not. Just because it is not mentioned what instruments should be used doesn't mean that old masters would have allowed such things.


You are sounding like the 19th century complaining of the 20th century, that the 19th died and the 20th century was born, lived and happened at all. Some people do not care at all for much of the art produced since the 1900's, and you may be one of them. To state your opinion on this is certainly alright.

This is a discussion about contemporary things, though, and the old masters are dead. Clearly we are speaking of the new masters here.

The topic is not whether the 20th century has happened, or what went wrong with 20th and 21st century music, but it is discussing the additional use of one more instrument of the many which have been used in classical music - classical music including all classical music written post 1900. About that, you've said your 'piece.'

New masters, to be masters, are expected to make something new, and not just repeat what the old masters did.

Did you bother to listen to the Olivier Messiaen _Trois petites liturgies de la présence divine_ or the John Adams _Dharma at Big Sur_, the electric violin concerto? I doubt it, and I think I can safely doubt that you would call them classical' with or without their electric instruments.

I think you are now being an echo of a point which has nothing to do with this thread....


----------



## PetrB

Renaissance said:


> Exactly, you got my point ! But not only in dynamics, but frequencies too. It is really really hard to reproduce the sound of an organ for example even on an audiophile system, recorded with the best technology. It won't sound real for a trained ear. This is what I was trying to say that it lack some capability of expression. If you compose electronic music without a keyboard it will sound plain and flat. With keyboard is ok, but only for certain sounds.


Name ONE instrument which does not, by its very nature have limits. As in a piano will never have the sound or acoustic properties of a violin. THOSE ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS YOU PRAISE ARE ALL MAN-MADE DELIBERATELY CONCEIVED AND BUILT SOUND GENERATORS -- SYNTHESIZERS OF A SORT.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> I believe Beethoven kept this quote on his desk, framed, while he wrote the Grosse Fuge. :lol:


The Grosse Fuge, of course, being one of the ugliest of famous pieces not in an historic dustbin: Luigi generated several seriously ugly pieces, each now sitting on the pedestals in their shrines....and talk about noise, what a hideous noise der Grose Fuge makes


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the electric guitar can be used in radically different ways. In jazz, the tone is clean and dark, and is mainly used like a piano.

The *jazz electric guitar* paradigm was created to force the guitar to fill *a pianistic role,* both harmonically and melodically emulating the piano, and *eschewing its inherent ability to bend notes *and become a more vocal solo voice;

The distorted electric guitar, as used in rock, is more suited to horn-like single note lines.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> The Grosse Fuge, of course, being one of the ugliest of famous pieces not in an historic dustbin....and talk about noise, what a hideous noise der Grose Fuge makes


I find it quite soothing and often use it in my daily meditation. It is played on repeat, of course, as it is rather short.


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> I find it quite soothing and often use it in my daily meditation. It is played on repeat, of course, as it is rather short.


Then its puzzling that you wouldn't also find great enjoyment in alot of 20th Century music.


----------



## KenOC

BurningDesire said:


> Then its puzzling that you wouldn't also find great enjoyment in alot of 20th Century music.


Is there some reason you think I don't?


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> Is there some reason you think I don't?


o3o I thought you didn't.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> I think the electric guitar can be used in radically different ways. In jazz, the tone is clean and dark, and is mainly used like a piano.
> 
> The *jazz electric guitar* paradigm was created to force the guitar to fill *a pianistic role,* both harmonically and melodically emulating the piano, and *eschewing its inherent ability to bend notes *and become a more vocal solo voice;


I'm not so sure about it. Especially at first jazz electric guitarist were famous for their single line improvisations, charlie christian, bill de arango, tal farlow etc. And in the sixties there were influential guitarists like Wes Montgomery, without mentioning those who use a lot of distortion too (coryell, mclaughlin, tisziji munoz, sonny greenwich, john abercrombie, holdsworth etc). I'm a big fan of the pianistic approach but i think it really was developed afterward.


----------



## techniquest

This is one of the best uses of electric guitar (and bass and drum-kit come to that) that I've heard of as genuinely integrated into the orchestra rather than being a soloist in a concerto or playing a piece in transcription.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> I'm not so sure about it. Especially at first jazz electric guitarist were famous for their single line improvisations, charlie christian, bill de arango, tal farlow etc. And in the sixties there were influential guitarists like Wes Montgomery, without mentioning those who use a lot of distortion too (coryell, mclaughlin, tisziji munoz, sonny greenwich, john abercrombie, holdsworth etc). I'm a big fan of the pianistic approach but i think it really was developed afterward.


Okay, I agree with all the players you mention, but let me further define exactly what I mean by the guitar playing a "pianistic role."

If you will recall, my exact words were: "The jazz electric guitar paradigm was created to force the guitar to fill a pianistic role, _*both harmonically and melodically emulating the piano,*_ and _eschewing its inherent ability to *bend notes* and become *a more vocal solo voice;*_

This statement does not exclude solo lines, and Tal Farlow can hardly be described as a "string-bender."


----------



## BurningDesire

techniquest said:


> This is one of the best uses of electric guitar (and bass and drum-kit come to that) that I've heard of as genuinely integrated into the orchestra rather than being a soloist in a concerto or playing a piece in transcription.


I remember reading that Star's End caused a typical modern music scandal when it was performed, and at that point, all I had heard was an excerpt on a Mike Oldfield record, and I was pretty baffled because that clip was really nothing crazy at all. I can somewhat more understand why some (ultra closeminded) people might be taken aback by this X3

Beautiful music though :3


----------



## kv466

I think a true electric guitar has little or no role in classical music. I haven't read beyond the first page but I'm sure someone has pointed out that the only thing electric about this guitar is the fact that it has pickups and then maybe that he plays it on a strap and not sitting down. Aside from that, this is purely an acoustic instrument with nylon strings and a fat classic-style neck that matches the way in which he plays it which is also completely acoustic and without the use of effects. So, pretty much, bad example.


----------



## neoshredder

Sure there is. See Uli Jon Roth (and Yngwie already mentioned)


----------



## jani

neoshredder said:


> Sure there is. See Uli Jon Roth (and Yngwie already mentioned)


Vai has composed 2 big orchestral works were he plays guitar.


----------



## Renaissance

kv466 said:


> I think a true electric guitar has little or no role in classical music. I haven't read beyond the first page but I'm sure someone has pointed out that the only thing electric about this guitar is the fact that it has pickups and then maybe that he plays it on a strap and not sitting down. Aside from that, this is purely an acoustic instrument with nylon strings and a fat classic-style neck that matches the way in which he plays it which is also completely acoustic and without the use of effects. So, pretty much, bad example.


I am not sure I would say such things here. Been here, done that.


----------



## jani

I think that this works pretty well.


----------



## KenOC

kv466 said:


> I think a true electric guitar has little or no role in classical music.


Not sure what a "true electric guitar" is. The instrument is inseparable from its electronics, effects, ability to drive a MIDI synth, and so forth. These are all part and parcel of the instrument. I think the electric guitar will come into its own in an orchestral setting when it is used to its full capabilities. This has already been done (to an extent) with the electric cello.

BTW Jani's clip (just above) is a nice example of the guitar "fitting in." I see the electric guitar as potentially a powerful and aggressive instrument, and would love to hear it set in opposition to the whole orchestra, just like those good old 19th century concertos!


----------



## PetrB

Here...
Gavin Bryars (British) ~ Epilogue from Wonderlawn; Solo viola, Electric guitar, 3 Cellos, Double bass, Bass clarinet





and... American Composer, Michael Gordon has composed:

Sunshine of Your Love (1999) 9'
444.4asx.4/4442/2timp.4perc/*2egtr.2eb*/4kbd/str

Who By Water (2004) 18'
0+pic.1.2.1/1110/3perc/*egtr*.kbd/2vn.vc.db

Vera, Chuck & Dave (1998) 11'
1020/1211/2perc/pf/*egtr.ebgtr*/vn.vc [all instruments amplified]

Love Bead (1997) 10'
1(pic).1(ca).0+bcl.0+cbn/1110/sampler.*ebgtr.egtr*/vn.va.vc [all instruments amplified]

David Lang (American) - [winner of Pulitzer Prize, Music] has composed:

The Passing Measures (1998) 45'
solo bcl, 8 alto voices,0000/4331/4perc,2pf,*ebgtr*,8 or more vc,2 or more db; amp

Forced March (2008) 10'
fl, bcl, tbn, pno, perc, *egtr*, vln,va,vc,db; amp

Writing on Water (2005) 32'
Text by Peter Greenaway
3 voices (2 bar, 1 bass); tpt, hn, tbn, pno, 2 perc, *egtr*, ebass, va, vc; amp

Slow Movement (1993) 25'
2 fl, a sax, ten sax, bar sax, perc, 2 syn, acn, 2 *egtr, ebgtr*, vn, vc; all amplified

I think it is already present enough on the contemporary classical scene that we can assume / project it will be used again


----------



## norman bates

jani said:


> I think that this works pretty well.


i'm not anymore into that kind of music but i think that salamander in the sun is the best melody ever of steve vai (altough i prefer the version on flex-able), it reminds a lot of zappa's "toads of the short forest".


----------



## Kopachris

KenOC said:


> Not sure what a "true electric guitar" is. The instrument is inseparable from its electronics, effects, ability to drive a MIDI synth, and so forth. These are all part and parcel of the instrument. I think the electric guitar will come into its own in an orchestral setting when it is used to its full capabilities. This has already been done (to an extent) with the electric cello.!


By the way, an electric guitar can't drive a MIDI synth any more than the human voice can. (That is, it can, but not in the same way as a keyboard.)


----------



## KenOC

Kopachris said:


> By the way, an electric guitar can't drive a MIDI synth any more than the human voice can. (That is, it can, but not in the same way as a keyboard.)


Well, maybe I'm misinformed. But Chapela's recent electric cello concerto does just that, multiple effects (switchable) via a foot controller, and a desktop computer driving a synthesizer to select the patch to be used at any point to provide the sound. The electric cello has no resonating body and provides no significant sound in an acoustic sense. The patches evidently can be driven by the input from the cello to generate the output signal at any frequency (glissandos are used often) and not just at discrete frequencies as with a keyboard. These aren't "cello sounds," they're patch sounds.

There's no difference between an electric cello and an electric guitar that I can see, at least that applies here. And, in fact, I don't now that MIDI protocols are used, but I suspect that they are.

As you suggest, the same approach can be taken with any instrument or even the voice.


----------



## Kopachris

KenOC said:


> Well, maybe I'm misinformed. But Chapela's recent electric cello concerto does just that, multiple effects (switchable) via a foot controller, and a desktop computer driving a synthesizer to select the patch to be used at any point to provide the sound. The electric cello has no resonating body and provides no significant sound in an acoustic sense. The patches evidently can be driven by the input from the cello to generate the output signal at any frequency (glissandos are used often) and not just at discrete frequencies as with a keyboard. These aren't "cello sounds," they're patch sounds.
> 
> There's no difference between an electric cello and an electric guitar that I can see, at least that applies here. And, in fact, I don't now that MIDI protocols are used, but I suspect that they are.
> 
> As you suggest, the same approach can be taken with any instrument or even the voice.


Just a little misinformed--those examples don't use the MIDI protocol. At least, not directly. They could, if analysis of the incoming audio signal was applied first to detect the fundamental frequency, which could then be sent to the synthesizer as MIDI data, but the signal from the pickups on an electric cello or electric guitar is an analog audio signal, the same type of signal as you get from a microphone, just generated slightly differently. (The foot controller to select different patches most likely does use MIDI, however.)

On a related note (which you probably already know, but I feel like mentioning anyway), you could very easily use an electric guitar (or cello, or violin...) without an amp. Since it produces an audio signal, you could hook it up to a loudspeaker either directly (though that would be very quiet), or through whatever amplification system you use for the rest of your ensemble just as though it were an acoustic instrument in front of a microphone. The only difference is that the audio signal is generated not from vibrations in the air, but by the vibration of the strings themselves.


----------



## KenOC

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that there has to be some circuitry to detect the fundamental frequency, and assume it is there. My understanding is that the foot controller is used for effects only, and that the effect and the patch are both selected via the laptop computer sitting next to the soloist (I'm speaking of the cello concerto here). Chapela's brother did all the patches and programming.

Really hope there is a good recording available one of these days. Chapela, "Magnetar."


----------



## Kopachris

Actually, after doing a little more research:










It sounds like all they did was pass the audio signal through an effect stack, with the foot pedal changing the effect stack in various ways. They wrote custom software to take input from the foot pedal and change the effect stack all at once. No synthesizer. A lot can be done with audio effects, though. Phaser, wah-wah, flanger... a lot can be done just with a few parametric equalizers, even!


----------



## KenOC

I'll check this out. From the sounds on the (unauthorized) recording I have, could have fooled me!


----------



## Kopachris

KenOC said:


> I'll check this out. From the sounds on the (unauthorized) recording I have, could have fooled me!


As an example of what you can do with just a few audio effects, I quickly put together an effects stack on top of a cello synthesizer. First is the cello synth clean, then with the effects: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/90384230/cello_effects_test.wav

The effects I used were (in order): two flangers (set to FL Studio's presets "Classic" and "Modulation," respectively), one parametric equalizer (small cuts at 170Hz and 730Hz), "Fruity Love Philter" with the preset "Lowpass into Highpass with pan" (with the LFO controlling the modulation between lowpass and highpass slowed down), some reverb (with FL Studio's preset "Large Hall"), and another parametric equalizer lowering bass through mid frequencies and boosting everything higher than 1.5kHz.


----------



## Arsakes

I hate this fact that Electric Guitar has already kicked ALL wind instruments and others like Piano, Violin etc. in Rock genre for the sake of praising Electric Guitar and that dumb Drum set. 
Like they like to say "We are DIFFERENT, We are SUPERIOR, those instruments are for Jazz plebs ... enbrace our GLORY, because we are the most ARTISTIC... we are the FUTURE"! :lol:


----------



## norman bates

Arsakes said:


> I hate this fact that Electric Guitar has already kicked ALL wind instruments and others like Piano, Violin etc. in Rock genre for the sake of praising Electric Guitar and that dumb Drum set.
> Like they like to say "We are DIFFERENT, We are SUPERIOR, those instruments are for Jazz plebs ... enbrace our GLORY, because we are the most ARTISTIC... we are the FUTURE"! :lol:


maybe you're not considering that a violin or a piano are usually more expensive than an electric guitar.


----------



## KenOC

Kopachris said:


> As an example of what you can do with just a few audio effects, I quickly put together an effects stack on top of a cello synthesizer. First is the cello synth clean, then with the effects:


Thanks for that -- it *does* sound familiar! I assume you can define sets of effects in advance and choose them quickly, kind of like organ stops on steroids. Can you feed an audio signal into these effects sets?

If you're interested in hearing the concerto I mentioned, please PM me.


----------



## neoshredder

I think Schnittke used the Electric Guitar occasionally in his music. That's a start. No reason it can't be used along with the harpsichord for modern music.


----------



## adrver

Apart from the previously mentioned Symhonies by Steve Vai, I can't actually think of any symphonies written for guitar and orchestra :/ Sure, Yngwie did it, but to me it felt like the orchestra and the guitar were seperated from each other. They did not play very well with each other, it felt more like they were playing against each other.

However, there are lots of good arrangements of classical pieces for the electrical guitar. One of my favourite guitar heroes, Paul Gilbert, has covered lots of classical music.

Harpsichord Concerto﻿ in A major by J.C. Bach





Symphony No. 88 (Allegro) by Haydn





I love both these songs, though I probably prefer the orchestrated versions a little more


----------



## PetrB

Michael Fiat ~ Slapback, for electric guitar, with slapback echo





Martin Bresnick ~ Be Just! for chamber ensemble: bass, percussion, piano, e-guitar.


----------



## oogabooha

BurningDesire said:


> Woo! He can sure play those scales real fast
> 
> Honestly, its not too bad, but it just doesn't impress me much. I tend to prefer electric guitarist/composers who's writing on the instrument isn't simply a vehicle for showing off, and alot of the guitar shredders just come off that way to me in much of their work.


I agree _completely_. Yngwie is such a boring guitarist, and so many of the "top" guitarists are usually very boring. Most of his music is focused on playing to the point of exhaustion, and I wish I could hear anything that remotely interested me.

As for the OP, Steve Reich's "Electric Counterpoint" is the first thing I think of when I think of really good modern pieces that utilize the electric guitar.

The electric guitar is a versatile instrument with many interesting timbres, and I hope that classical musicians can fully unlock its potential soon. I would love to hear a composer write in the style of Thurston Moore (of Sonic Youth)'s guitar playing, because, while rock musicians really have unlocked the potential of the instrument, most music in rock music is felt within songs, and not pieces. I'd love to hear the potential work in a concerto or a drawn out composition.


----------



## violadude

jani said:


> This piece is pretty good.
> Yngwie has the best "feel" over the instrument that i have ever heard.
> WARNING LOADS OF SHREDDING.


Isn't that a Vivaldi concerto?


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> Isn't that a Vivaldi concerto?


Nope. Wrong Era. Paganini. Followed by the Adagio which was not written by Albinoni.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Nope. Wrong Era. Paganini. Followed by the Adagio which was not written by Albinoni.


Oh right, I was thinking of this one






I can't tell you how many bad suzuki performances I had to fish through to get the real deal.


----------



## starthrower

I'm not a fan of the 80s shredders. Too much guitar centric wankery for my taste. There was a fantastic electric instrumental ensemble that emerged in the mid 70s called the Dixie Dregs. Their leader Steve Morse is a phenomenal guitarist and composer with none of the pretense that plagues the shred contingency. He wrote great music to feature the whole ensemble. I like to think of the Dregs as an electric chamber group. This tune is from their 1981 release Unsung Heroes.






Here's one from their 1980 release Dregs Of The Earth






Chips Ahoy, from their 1982 release Industry Standard
featuring Mark O'Connor on violin.


----------



## Arsakes

norman bates said:


> maybe you're not considering that a violin or a piano are usually more expensive than an electric guitar.


Bad excuse. I suppose we should try and put some effort and budget if we want to create better music ... or it won't be much artistic.


----------



## norman bates

Arsakes said:


> Bad excuse. I suppose we should try and put some effort and budget if we want to create better music ... or it won't be much artistic.


It's not an excuse, rock'n'roll isn't born as the genre of the rich class, and for this reason it's a genre that is been dominated by an instrument that was as expensive as many classical instruments, imo.


----------



## Bargeon

Norwegian guitarman Terje Rypdal grew up in the rock genre but was influenced early on by the likes of Krzysztof Penderecki and electirc Miles.

Though you are likely to find him in YouTube linked to a number of rock or fusion videos, from early on he has composed orchestral pieces, notably some film scores and several symphonies as well, including some lovely choral works. Though only a few of these contain parts written for guitar, notable for this conversation is his Double Concerto scored for two electric guitars. Hardly the first piece to use e-guitar but possibly alone in the field of double concertos.

http://www.ecmrecords.com/Catalogue/ECM/1500/1567.php?cat=&we_start=24&lvredir=712&we_search=+rypdal

Truth be told, I have heard other orchestral works with guitar I think better represent the possibilities (notably Bill Frisell playing with Gavin Bryars, this was years before The Friz moved to Nashville). But where Rypdal shines is not when he writes classical pieces around the electric, but when he brings classical compositional elements to smaller works featuring the guitar.

And no he does not play Mozart or Beethoven on a Stratocaster. (IMO few things fail more miserably than rockers flailing away at the classics.)

Rypdal has written small ensemble pieces that feature the guitar. The best examples may be tracks on the "If Mountains Could Sing" and "Skywards" CDs. His sound (with a few effects and his trademark bent and slurred notes) has always had an affinity for violin and it's easy to imagine that instrument subbing for many of his guitar parts. In fact he substituted the guitar for the flute part in one of his choral works, "Ineo".

Rypdal has recorded for years with ECM

You'll find some information here
http://www.furious.com/perfect/terjerypdal.html

A section from Skyward is here





A symphonic work with guitar, Lux Aeterna here





2nd symphony, an early based around his working band at the time,


----------



## millionrainbows

Segovia is the guy mainly responsible for giving the guitar "classical cred," bringing it from its folk/dance origins. His statements concerning the electric guitar (in a Guitar Player magazine interview) were "unpublishable" according to a footnote by the editors. So, we can see from this, that the electric guitar is a totally different animal.


----------



## Bargeon

"unpublishable". And not without probable cause


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Just wait electric Banjo- a classical sensation, thats what it'll be the next big thing.....................

Note Steve's new range of Jem banjo's


----------



## sharik

Pavel said:


> Electric guitar in a role of classical instrument


bad idea, it adds nothing to the overall sound of an orchestra.


----------



## Bargeon

Agreed. To me it just sounds badly out of place, even in compositions written to include it.

But the original question was "in the role of a classical instrument." And I've heard one or two ensemble pieces that that came off with some success, all of them in conteporary settings and involving musicians with eclectic backgrounds. Most notably Gavin Bryars "After the Requium", scored for guitar, violin, viola and cello






If you have an opportunity to listen, I'd be glad to hear your opinion.
Besides Frisell on guitar, the other player to note here is Alex Balanescu, who has worked wih Bryars in the past and has his own body of work out there, all of it in that class of "new music", which generally means somehow sprung from or hoping to be taken for classical but not yet acknowledged to be in the genre.


----------



## KenOC

I think the electric guitar is rarely encountered in an orchestral setting because it's difficult to play well. So I'm surprised that the air guitar hasn't been mentioned here.

With the air guitar, problems of fingering and rhythm are almost eliminated, and there is a much larger talent pool -- so soloists can be had more cheaply. In fact, I understand that there are quite a few talented air guitar virtuosi who have gone on the become air conductors...


----------



## neoshredder

Electric Guitar is a great lead instrument similar to the Piano. So Electric Guitar Concertos or Electric Guitar Sonatas with Piano would be a great idea imo. But I agree it doesn't fit in well with the Orchestra just like the Piano struggles with. But it's a great main instrument.


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> I think the electric guitar is rarely encountered in an orchestral setting because it's difficult to play well


however for example Shostakovich does have it for his ballet The Golden Age -


----------



## sharik

neoshredder said:


> Electric Guitar is a great lead instrument similar to the Piano


then get the piano to combine with the trumpet or tuba in a score and this would be the sound of a gain-boosted electric guitar, for example.


----------



## neoshredder

There is no combo that can imitate a distorted guitar. It is unique. I hope for some Electric Guitar Concertos in the future.


----------



## sharik

neoshredder said:


> There is no combo that can imitate a distorted guitar


honestly speaking, the distorted electric guitar came into use as an emulation of symphonic orchestral sound, so that some four guys could imitate the drive and volume of a symphony orchestra, though somewhat stridently but listen to the first edition of Boris Godunov - a similar experience, hence the pounding drums and heavy bass and overdriven guitars.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I think the electric guitar is rarely encountered in an orchestral setting because it's difficult to play well.


Looking at some of the performers I wonder if they will ever get the hang of it?


----------



## Arsakes

Electric Guitar was a nice instrument in 30s, 40s and 50s, but since the 60s rock and metal has ruined it for me.
Chronologically so to speak. I'm born late 80s!


----------



## neoshredder

Arsakes said:


> Electric Guitar was a nice instrument in 30s, 40s and 50s, but since the 60s rock and metal has ruined it for me.
> Chronologically so to speak. I'm born late 80s!


On contrary, the electric guitar didn't hit its stride until the late 70's and continued its prime until grunge took over. But still hints of great guitar play in the Progressive Metal field.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> There is no combo that can imitate a distorted guitar. It is unique. I hope for some Electric Guitar Concertos in the future.


Me too. Need a heroic 19th-century attitude, guitar vs the orchestra...none of that "nice" stuff!


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> none of that "nice" stuff!


agreed, none of the nice stuff, that is, none of electric guitars' because pop and rock are getting support from the Multiculturalist politics & policies these days.


----------



## Ramako

In my opinion, classical music will make a great deal use more of electric instruments, and new technologies in general, in the future. Why limit ourselves to an acoustic orchestra? I am personally in favour of using things like the electric guitar, although I think it would only blend in to quite an extended orchestra. Of course it doesn't need to blend in like neo points out - it could be a concerto instrument.

The only problem I see with an electric guitar is associative: it's association with other types of music. This is a temporary nonsense and could easily be overcome in time.

Nor does this emphasis on technology necessarily mean a move towards popular or more 'modern' idioms at all.



> Adams explained that working with synthesizers caused a "diatonic conversion," a reversion to the belief that tonality was a force of nature


----------



## sharik

Ramako said:


> Why limit ourselves to an acoustic orchestra?


it is electrical instruments that limit us to a mere imitation, while symphony orchestra is an expansion beyond any limits imaginable, and it does not need an emulator the electric guitar is.


----------



## sharik

however, for example, can Morricone's _C'era Una Volta Il West_ OST be considered a classical music?... if yes, then its electric guitar is ok to accept, but yet again that is a *recording* the sound of which is a result of *production*, i.e. it is doubtful they could reproduce live this sinister mean sound of a Gretsch or whatever guitar they used there.


----------



## Mahlerian

sharik said:


> it is electrical instruments that limit us to a mere imitation, while symphony orchestra is an expansion beyond any limits imaginable, and it does not need an emulator the electric guitar is.


What does an electric guitar emulate? How about a sine wave?

One of John Harbison's symphonies (No. 5?) uses an electric guitar in a brief but important role. There aren't any commercial recordings of that piece, though.


----------



## sharik

Mahlerian said:


> What does an electric guitar emulate?


clean sound el.guitars emulate the piano, saturated overdriven ones emulate the trumpet or tuba or entire brass section or, when playing a muffled 8th note rhythm, the Mozartian strings, or (like they do in the Metal) Stravinsky's score of _The Rite Of Springs_.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> clean sound el.guitars emulate the piano, saturated overdriven ones emulate the trumpet or tuba or entire brass section or, when playing a muffled 8th note rhythm, the Mozartian strings, or (like they do in the Metal) Stravinsky's score of _The Rite Of Springs_.


I can't work out if your serious or not but 10points for humour :lol:


----------



## sharik

Andante said:


> I can't work out if your serious or not but 10points for humour


no humor at all, rock came from classical music such as Mozart, Rossini, Donizetti and so on. Stravinsky with his Rite Of Spring made an impact on various Metal styles of the 1980s.


----------



## deggial

^ everything was influenced by something that came before. There's no saying how the use of instruments and ideas will evolve...


----------



## deggial

Arsakes said:


> I hate this fact that Electric Guitar has already kicked ALL wind instruments and others like Piano, Violin etc. in Rock genre for the sake of praising Electric Guitar and that dumb Drum set.
> Like they like to say "We are DIFFERENT, We are SUPERIOR, those instruments are for Jazz plebs ... enbrace our GLORY, because we are the most ARTISTIC... we are the FUTURE"! :lol:


how do you know what they're thinking? maybe they just like the sound of electric guitar + drum set. Maybe they've never been exposed to anything else. Maybe they have, and they still enjoy the sound. Maybe they want sex, drugs & rock'n'roll rather than playing to a concert hall full of retired people


----------



## Crudblud

Normally I would just ignore sharik for the troll that he is, but I'm in the mood for this ridiculousness today.

Rock music is predominantly rooted in the blues, a folk music derived from Negro spirituals, gospel and country music, it has very little to do with any kind of European music at its core. Metal, too, is derived from these roots; the most often cited genre originators Black Sabbath were originally called the Polka Tulk Blues Band, and much of their early sound reflects this in spades on songs such as _The Wizard_. Ozzy Osbourne's spartan vocals also reflected the rough and ready vocal blues style which can be observed in Blind Lemon Jefferson and other important country or Delta blues singers from the early phonograph era. In the late 1960s progressive rock began incorporating the European influence, but in the case of King Crimson often much more modern examples of European music, and it's really only when we hit the shred era of metal during the 1980s that the virtuosic grandeur of Paganini and Liszt begins to enter the fray. Yngwie Malmsteen is quite obviously influenced by J.S. Bach, but the resemblance is superficial, as a friend of mine has noted he wrote a piece called _Fugue_ which did not resemble a fugue in the slightest. Regardless of all this, it remains a fact that rock music in essence has nothing or at least very little to do with classical music.

The distorted sound of the electric guitar was at first the result of the limitations of amplifier technology in the first half of the 20th century, it was not the intended sound and certainly no one had conceived of it as an emulation of an orchestra, it was simply a wrinkle in the technology. It was only later that it was applied stylistically and on purpose, such as in Ike Turner's 1951 song _Rocket 88_. In the early 1960s the fuzz box was produced, it was the first commercially produced piece of amplification equipment specifically designed to produce a distorted tone, and by this time classical music was no longer the dominant musical form having been replaced by and large by such things as pop, rhythm and blues, jazz and so on, so the chances of it being designed to emulate an orchestra are pretty slim by my reckoning. The distortion sound was further developed by Dick Dale, a *surf rock* guitarist who collaborated with Fender to expand the distortion and decibel levels of the amplifier, resulting in the world's first 100 watt amplifier. Surf rock, by the way, is derived from rockabilly, which itself comes from country music.

*@Arsakes:* You are aware that rock music in general shies away from pretentiousness? I doubt they would use the word "pleb", especially against jazz musicians. The mainstream rock band format of today is becoming increasingly augmented with instruments typically associated with such diverse genres as jazz, country and classical music. The Zutons, Jack White, Radiohead etc. are all examples of popular bands/artists who are predominantly rooted in rock that make use of instruments outside the general sphere of rock instrumentation, there is also a notable movement in the indie scene which makes use of a wide range of unusual instruments and in considerably larger ensembles than the usual 3-5 players. No, I think you're projecting your own feelings of superiority on them in an attempt to make them look bad.


----------



## sharik

Crudblud said:


> Rock music is predominantly rooted in the blues


no, they claim it to be so whereas Rock has in fact nothing to do with rock'n'roll and its components like blues & country, except for lyrics and melodies, and Rock even sounds different because the very essence of it is the so-called 'drive' that embodies dynamical *development* of a rock composition when it's being composed/rehearsed/recorded/played live, and belongs to a classical music field, best evident in such operas as Rossini's _Cenerentola_ and Donizetti's _L'Elisir d'Amore_ and Mozart _40th Symphony's 1st part_.


----------



## Ramako

sharik said:


> it is electrical instruments that limit us


On the contrary, technology has expanded the possibilities immensely in only the same way as has happened before, but more. The orchestra in Bach's time was much more limited than a modern symphony orchestra, but technology evolved allowing us to build new instruments and expand the sonic range of the orchestra.


----------



## Arsakes

neoshredder said:


> On contrary, the electric guitar didn't hit its stride until the late 70's and continued its prime until grunge took over. But still hints of great guitar play in the Progressive Metal field.


I suppose late 60s or 70s itself is my boundary toward the tolerable electric guitar then. I may tolerate Rock few times, but Heavy Rock and Any kind of Metal is unforgivable.

*@Crudblud*, Louder =/= better. There is always a sensible limit and if someone passes that limit is a radical. For me what I mentioned in the last paragraph is radical and bad music. Electric Guitar could keep its charms if it was used in moderate sound. This radical electric guitar encouraged singers to shout like maniacs, alongside other social/conceptual 60s-80s innovations...


----------



## deggial

Arsakes said:


> This radical electric guitar encouraged singers to shout like maniacs, alongside other social/conceptual 60s-80s innovations...


the 1960s was not the first time in history that singers started to shout like maniacs.


----------



## Arsakes

deggial said:


> the 1960s was not the first time in history that singers started to shout like maniacs.


Yeah, I know. They would get tired so fast, because there wasn't the enhanced electric guitar to support them!
And their Doze of madness was far less!


----------



## deggial

^ I don't know, there's some pretty lengthy mad scenes out there and a good portion of operas go on a lot longer than your standard rock concert... imagine if they had microphones and didn't need to worry about ruining their voices. Possibly Wagner's wet dream


----------



## sharik

Ramako said:


> technology evolved allowing us to build new instruments and expand the sonic range of the orchestra


okay, build new accoustic instruments, discard electric ones.


----------



## sharik

deggial said:


> imagine if they had microphones


Rodger Daltry, Ian Gillan, Freddy Mercury and so on - an opera rejects.


----------



## Mahlerian

sharik said:


> clean sound el.guitars emulate the piano, saturated overdriven ones emulate the trumpet or tuba or entire brass section or, when playing a muffled 8th note rhythm, the Mozartian strings, or (like they do in the Metal) Stravinsky's score of _The Rite Of Springs_.


This is so incredibly ridiculous I don't know where I would begin...

All of the similarities you mention are superficial at best and fanciful at worst, especially the Rite of Spring remark. Crudblud already said it all better, though.


----------



## DrKilroy

Let's refer to the first page of this thread. The redordings posted by the OP (an the Kapustin recording posted by me  ) are quite good. They show that electric guitar's use in classical music may not neccesarily resemble rock music (no matter if you like it or not). Use of distortions and other characteristic effects could be compared to using various timbres on another great electrophone - ondes Martenot. 

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Ramako

sharik said:


> okay, build new accoustic instruments, discard electric ones.


Why? 000000


----------



## KenOC

I am waiting for...four really good but ill-tempered electric guitarists, with big amps and all the electronics, to play the Grosse Fuge. Probably not in my lifetime...


----------



## sharik

Mahlerian said:


> All of the similarities you mention are superficial at best and fanciful at worst, especially the Rite of Spring remark. Crudblud already said it all better, though.


----------



## jani

KenOC said:


> I am waiting for...four really good but ill-tempered electric guitarists, with big amps and all the electronics, to play the Grosse Fuge. Probably not in my lifetime...


Yeah, its not because of technology & skill, its because its impossible to find four electric guitar players with no egos and make them play perfectly in time together.
Specially when the rhythm on that piece isn't easy.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> no humor at all, rock came from classical music such as Mozart, Rossini, Donizetti and so on. Stravinsky with his Rite Of Spring made an impact on various Metal styles of the 1980s.


You say _"clean sound el.guitars emulate the piano, saturated overdriven ones emulate the trumpet or tuba or entire brass section or, when playing a muffled 8th note rhythm, the Mozartian strings"_ 
IMO it will never sound like the above instruments it may try to but it does not succeed at least the stuff that I have heard


----------



## sharik

Andante said:


> it will never sound like the above instruments


yep, like all emulators do.


----------



## Ramako

sharik said:


> no, they claim it to be so whereas Rock has in fact nothing to do with rock'n'roll and its components like blues & country, except for lyrics and melodies, and Rock even sounds different because the very essence of it is the so-called 'drive' that embodies dynamical *development* of a rock composition when it's being composed/rehearsed/recorded/played live, and belongs to a classical music field, best evident in such operas as Rossini's _Cenerentola_ and Donizetti's _L'Elisir d'Amore_ and Mozart _40th Symphony's 1st part_.


Ok, I make my apologies to everyone since I probably know least about rock here... But nevertheless, I am going to fall for the troll and do my Oxford thing, since I have access to a lot of things.

Robynn Stilwell, writing an article on the history of rock (in _The Cambridge history of twentieth-century music_) of over 30 pages mentions classical 6 times... 4 of them are irrelevant, 1 of them is to do with progressive rock, and another is to do with musicological attitudes towards rock. In other words he doesn't think classical has anything to do with rock, let alone that rock developed from it. Nor, presumably, does Nicholas Cook who edited the book.

I have skimmed several other articles, which suggest a profound *difference*, rather than similarity between the two styles. Here is one, from a book entitled _The Cambridge History of American Music_, entitled "The rock and roll era". It explains that


> "Rock" has often been used as a general term for all styles of post-1955 popular music


 and it deals with rock music (not just 'rock and roll') and all of these sorts of things. Again there are 6 references to classical music, of which several are semi-relevent, talking about the Beatles specifically. Here is your moment of triumph.



> Bands like Rush, Pink Floyd, and Yes continued this style of complex, often self-consciously elitist music; labeled "progressive" rock, it also displayed an emphatic turning away from African American influences. Many rock fans and critics were flattered by the artistic pretensions of such music, regarding its adoption of classical devices and values as an evolutionary improvement, and art rock came to be very influential in shaping the canons of rock criticism and justifying serious study of the music.


Clearly therefore this classical influence came to rock *from the outside*. It influenced mostly progressive rock and similar sorts. Otherwise this kind of influence would not have been necessary. This latter article is entirely clear that rock evolved exactly as Crudblud outlined. *Rock did not evolve out of classical.* Scholars are entirely clear on the matter - even wiki agrees:



> Rock music is a genre of popular music that originated as "rock and roll" in 1950s America and developed into a range of different styles in the 1960s and later, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States.


Unless you can provide informed evidence to support your above point the matter is closed.


----------



## Mahlerian

sharik said:


>


Okay, that's one example. But the sound of heavy metal is not derived from Stravinsky. It's derived from hard rock, which was derived from the blues.


----------



## sharik

Ramako said:


> Unless you can provide informed evidence to support your above point the matter is closed


no the matter is not closed, and the evidence is your own eyes and ears. Rock as a term emerged when there was already Hard Rock and nascent Metal Rock where even voices and stage stance were taken from opera singers.


----------



## sharik

Mahlerian said:


> the sound of heavy metal is not derived from Stravinsky


the sound of Rock was built so that to emulate the volume and density of symphony orchestra sound.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> yep, like all emulators do.


Do what? never sound??????


----------



## sharik

Andante said:


> Do what? never sound??????


do never sound like the original.


----------



## KenOC

A couple of excellent recent concertos for electrified instruments:

-- Adams, Dharma at Big Sur (2003) (electric violin). Predominantly lyrical, intense, conservative idiom.

-- Chapela, Magnetar (2011) (electric cello). Pretty wild, lots of effects, idioms range from atonal to sleazy 1940s lounge music.

Electric guitar still needs to come into its own!


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> do never sound like the original.


Ok, got yer, so not very original eh, just a wanabe.


----------



## Ramako

sharik said:


> no the matter is not closed, and the evidence is your own eyes and ears. Rock as a term emerged when there was already Hard Rock and nascent Metal Rock where even voices and stage stance were taken from opera singers.


Until you can provide some scholarly back-up, or alternatively a reasoned and evidenced historical narrative where classical is shown to have been the root of rock music, or a convincing analytical argument, then the matter _is_ closed. That clip does not sound like classical. It does not use developmental techniques in a classical way. It sounds like rock music, which sounds like rock n roll and all the rest of that branch of popular musics which evolved out of the blues in the 1950s. You can't support an argument on stage stance. The style evolved out of the blues and related styles. It is historically documented. My involvement in this argument ends here. This topic is not the point of the thread, which I may or may not contribute further towards. I won't continue the argument because there is no way I can do it without being a horrible person, and I usually dislike it when other posters (who are very few, and not active at the moment) around here write in a way I find condescending.


----------



## Guest

The first Rock that I heard was in the 50s from Bill Haley and the Comets "Rock around the clock" it was all down hill from there on


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'm quite certain Chuck Berry and AC/DC for example have never had classical music as an inspiration............

well - except for Over over Beethoven maybe lol


----------



## Guest

Eddie that's bliddy terrible...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Andante said:


> Eddie that's bliddy terrible...


I aim to please....... glad you felt moved by it !


----------



## sharik

Andante said:


> Ok, got yer, so not very original eh, just a wanabe.


the electric guitar is, yeah, and even the accoustic guitar is of no value for an orchestra.


----------



## sharik

Ramako said:


> you can provide some scholarly back-up


come on... there cannot be anything 'scholarly' about this matter because it is at this very moment that we may establish a scholarly attitude towards what happened in the 20th century, that is *we are the scholars* to decide what's what here.



Ramako said:


> That clip does not sound like classical


the vid i provided is every bit classical music, only being played by four men trying to emulate a symphony orchestra sound, just watch and listen to it thoroughly, it sounds and looks completely different from the blues, even in terms of lyrics which rather belong to opera field, not to metion that the song is part of the so-called 'rock opera' _Tommy_ by The Who, a band.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> the electric guitar is, yeah, and even the accoustic guitar is of no value for an orchestra.


Agreed but it is a fine solo instrument 'acoustic' that is


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I aim to please....... glad you felt moved by it !


It is one of those moments in life that should be bracketed


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ [Yep]- have to agree with you on that one.


----------



## Arsakes

Andante said:


> The first Rock that I heard was in the 50s from Bill Haley and the Comets "Rock around the clock" it was all down hill from there on


It's quite Rock'n'roll.

I have heard enough to understand why Rock fans like to label anything they like 'Rock'. Not surprisingly they abhor most american genres before Rock (like (Rhythm &)Blues and Country) with the exception of some Rock'n'roll songs which are more Rocky...

And back to the topic, by comparing an Orchestra with a Rock Band we can understand that every instrument in a Rock band is so loud (there is only 3 or 4 instruments at max in them).
How the heck a bassoon, oboe or cello can be heard if we add rock instruments to the orchestra. Electric Guitar have the ability to dominate the orchestra in a bad way. The beauty part of the orchestra might be perished by adding super excitement aspect to it. No thanks, we already have super exciting genres out there ... don't ruin the classic music & tradition.


----------



## Chrythes

What nonsense are you talking about?
You are now defining an instrument based on one way in which it's used. Electric guitar can also be the quietest instrument in the orchestra since it has sound knobs. You can regulate its sound because it's an electrical instrument. You don't necessary have to add it as a solo instrument, it can also be used to create different background sounds, add an interesting colour to the harmony etc. The Ignorance and generalisations you are showing are quite frankly frightening.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

sound knobs - i like that one- from a confirmed guitar junkie here got up to 18 guitars before my sons "acquired" a few for them- I'm still aiming for 20 sounds like a good number to me. How about electric banjo's - that's my latest obsession!


----------



## Bone

This guy came up in the hair metal period. Very much electric guitar concerto material.


----------



## norman bates

Bartok on electric guitar sounds great


----------



## matsoljare

I'm surprised there haven't been more attempts at an actual "orchestra" of electric guitars, playing different melodic parts in unison like a string section would.


----------



## Selby

Renaissance said:


> Because those who seek to introduce electric guitar into classical music won't play baroque music on it, but only noise for the noise's sake. Because those who can appreciate a good old traditional classical piece don't need extra-noise for it.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> 
> The way they produce sound, their wave geometry which makes everything sound dissonant even if you play perfect interval on it, for example. It has a kind of unforeseeable sound, and gives music a sense of randomness.


A number of musicians have re-arranged Bach for electric guitar.


----------



## PetrB

matsoljare said:


> I'm surprised there haven't been more attempts at an actual "orchestra" of electric guitars, playing different melodic parts in unison like a string section would.


Disaster -- the precision to have that many percussion instruments play in time is inhuman, the sound, usually suffers from a crunch / crunch kind of sound.

Yes, folks, electric, distortion, sustain pedal and all, it is a percussion instrument, you pluck it.

Imagine an ensemble of harpsichord, guitar, mandolin, harp, for example. If the timing of that small group is not impeccable, you get the rhythmic crunch shuffle not everyone exactly quite in time shuffle... which is what a whole section of guitars would sound like.

Pedal sustain, etc aside, the sound still dies if a note is long extended -- transliterating string section music to a section of guitars would be less than a successful switch -- i.e. never a good idea to transfer a task from using the tool which does it superbly to another which does not innately do it well.


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> Disaster -- the precision to have that many percussion instruments play in time is inhuman, the sound, usually suffers from a crunch / crunch kind of sound.
> 
> Yes, folks, electric, distortion, sustain pedal and all, it is a percussion instrument, you pluck it.
> 
> Imagine an ensemble of harpsichord, guitar, mandolin, harp, for example. If the timing of that small group is not impeccable, you get the rhythmic crunch shuffle not everyone exactly quite in time shuffle... which is what a whole section of guitars would sound like.
> 
> Pedal sustain, etc aside, the sound still dies if a note is long extended -- transliterating string section music to a section of guitars would be less than a successful switch -- i.e. never a good idea to transfer a task from using the tool which does it superbly to another which does not innately do it well.


Its no more inhuman than playing other instruments in time. There are plenty of pieces for fairly large percussion ensembles (ever see a marching band?), and besides if anything, most percussionists have the most impeccable timing of all musicians. There's also plenty of music for large ensembles of nylon stringed guitars, and they play them fine. Also, though I'm not fond of his music, Glenn Branca has written alot of music for very large electric guitar ensembles.


----------



## Jobis

The difficulty as one guitarist said in a music lecture I attended, is that whereas with a violin, the differences between individual violins are extremely subtle, with electric guitars, the difference between the amplifier used, the guitar type, the pickups etc. makes for a very different sound. Is the composer meant to indicate exactly what amplifier, what settings, what pickups to use in the score? It seems like a difficult thing to have control over.


----------



## GreenMamba

matsoljare said:


> I'm surprised there haven't been more attempts at an actual "orchestra" of electric guitars, playing different melodic parts in unison like a string section would.


Would you need an orchestra for that? Why not just turn the volume up on one?


----------



## BurningDesire

GreenMamba said:


> Would you need an orchestra for that? Why not just turn the volume up on one?


well the sounds of several or many guitars playing a line are different from just one :3

Volume concerns aside, the sound overall has a different character~


----------



## PaulAbner

*Can the electric guitar be its own instrument in classical music?*

Cultivated works on electric guitar
soundcloud.com/paul-abner

Classically-inspired modern guitar
1) Prelude No. 1 in E Minor by Heitor Villa-Lobos
2) Danza Espanola No. 5 by Enrique Granados
3) Winter Song by Paul Abner
4) I Drew the Lucky Card by Paul Abner
5) Lament-Asturias by Paul Abner & Isaac Albeniz
6-8) La Catedral by Augustine Barrios Mangore
 i: Preludio
 ii: Andante Religioso
 iii: Allegro Solemne
9-11) El Decameron Negro by Leo Brouwer
 i: La Arpa del Guerrero
  ii: La Huida de los Amantes por el Valle de los
Ecos
 iii: La Balada de la Doncella Enamorada
12) Colder by Paul Abner
13) Tango en Skai by Roland Dyens

Is this serious music?


----------

