Classical - (Jazz) - Pop

[Beef Oven!]

Hey thanks Dover, I'll set to record now.

PS. Lots of interesting fancy discussion going on here

An interesting thread - good debut!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Application of Quantum theory to sound and music is not well-known, although you may be familiar with it, ferney:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...uantum&f=false

"Familiar" would be an exaggeration - at best, I was "aware" of such research (I think Jim Al- Khalili touched on it for abou quarter-of-an-hour in his three-hour tv series earlier in the year). Thanks for that link - I'll spend time on it; I find the whole subject fascinating (and won't even make the obvious jokes about my own "semiconductor Theory"!)

The Universe may be bonkers, but it is the sense we make of it which is the important thing.

- absolutely and totally agree (and I would include that little spicing of nonsense in the mix, too).

As I understand (or probably "misunderstand" it) - a lot of Quantum Physics is bonkers only when we use words to "explain"/describe it. Using Mathematics, things are much more elegant - following the choreography of an equation can lead neatly to (for example) a negative number; it's only when you "translate" this into words that we end up with statements like "the cause originates after its effect"; or "the particle dies before it is born". (A quarter of a Century since I did any serious reading on the subject, it will be obvious. Glad of any corrections.)

[Quarky]

Thanks ferney. Well I was totally unfamiliar with the subject, but I have now ordered a copy of "Microsound", since it looks as though it will fill a large gap in my knowledge about Xenakis, Stockhausen, and the entire electronic music movement.

Yes Quantum Mechanics is a fascinating subject, although not for the faint-hearted, and the mathematics can quickly get far too complicated for me to follow. I gave up soon after Paul Dirac muscled in. However these days with Nanotechnology, and with Quantum computing ("entanglement"), the subject seems to have its feet back on the ground again.

[Lat-Literal]

If my memory is right, the only mathematics genius I ever knew - PhD and rising - was into heavy rock, world music and playing the didgeridoo for Lords and Ladies at garden parties. In fact, the first time I went to Womad it was with him, his wife and his baby in a 2CV. I was the only non-vegetarian. There used to be a photograph on the internet of him with his arm around Peter Gabriel but I can't find it now. That's obviously a pity as it would provide us with a clear visual representation of musical leanings from the maths angle.

[MrGongGong]

Thanks ferney. Well I was totally unfamiliar with the subject, but I have now ordered a copy of "Microsound", since it looks as though it will fill a large gap in my knowledge about Xenakis, Stockhausen, and the entire electronic music movement.
.

Aaah Curtis's slim volume, a classic (which is still on my "to be read" list)
Though i'm not sure it will help Natty who seems reluctant to engage with these things?

[NatBalance]

Apparently the universe is bonkers. So, judging by the comments being made here about me I reckon that makes me the person here most in touch with it? (Drat, there's no funny face for pulling tongues)

Thanks for the compliment Beef Oven. That might mean you are more in touch with the universe aswell, in other words ...... :)

Music Theory is the same - it explains things like why A major has a key signature with three sharps and why those three sharps have to be exactly F#, C# and G# - it is precisely "an exact science".

Sure, music theory is exact in that way but what does that tell you? It tells you why you need to have exactly F#, C# and G# in order to get the sound of the A major scale. Great! The 'key' is in how to use the scale of A major to create an artistic piece of music. Music theory goes a way to helping with that procedure but at the moment it can not be exact and breaking the rules can result in a fantastic piece of music.

I've heard reasoning why certain music is bad, I've heard that Status Quo are crap because they only know three chords. That may be correct, but what on earth has that got to do with it? That is no criteria to make such a judgment. I'm sure MrGong would be able to hunt out a mighty fine piece of music that only has one chord. The point is, what does the music sound like, and most importantly, do you like it?

As for "I don't believe knowledge of music theory bares [sic] any relationship on your ability to judge good music from bad" - it's like saying that being literate has no bearing on one's ability to judge good literature from bad; not knowing Mathematics has no bearing on one's ability to judge the validity of Quantum Physics.

Interesting point and it got me thinking but I think I've sorted it. I don't think it is the same analogy because to be able to read you have to be literate. To listen and be able to judge good music I don't think you need theory, I reckon all you need are your ears, a brain of course, and an interest in music, and not forgetting …. a soul.

I suspect (or "reckon") that what is meant is "enjoyment" rather than "judgment", which "works" ("I don't believe that knowledge of Music Theory bears any relationship on your ability to enjoy good Music and bad") but which is a very different animus.

Well, in the case of music I reckon enjoyment and judgment are one and the same thing. If you are not enjoying the music, what other judgment can there be? If you are well aversed in theory you may be better able to explain why you like or do not like it, but whether someone has theory knowledge or not does not mean that their judgment as to whether the piece is good or bad is more valid than the person with no theory knowledge. What matters I think more than anything is how much the person is interested in music and how much it affects them.

I've heard it said that you need to understand music in order to enjoy it. I have never understood that view. If you need to understand a piece in order to enjoy it surely that means that the music itself is not good enough. Do you need to understand a slice of cake before deciding whether or not you like it?

I used to not like the song 'Don't Like Mondays' by the Boomtown Rats, only because I did not like the way Bob Geldof sang it. I later found out what the song was about, about some school girl who did not like Mondays and shot people one Monday (I think), but the fact that I then understood what the song was about made absolutely no difference whatsoever whether I liked it or not (I've heard it recently and don't think it's that bad now actually).

Ferny I'll answer your question more fully in the next post

[MrGongGong]

I've heard that Status Quo are crap because they only know three chords. That may be correct,

It's not correct
BUT they are brilliant BECAUSE 90% (or there abouts) of their songs only use 3 chords (the other ones are useless IMV)

If you are not enjoying the music, what other judgment can there be?

So here's your homework
I want you to find a piece of music that you think is brilliant BUT you don't "like".

I'm sure MrGong would be able to hunt out a mighty fine piece of music that only has one chord.

I've already done that.

Here's the score

[doversoul1]

Thanks ferney. Well I was totally unfamiliar with the subject, but I have now ordered a copy of "Microsound", since it looks as though it will fill a large gap in my knowledge about Xenakis, Stockhausen, and the entire electronic music movement.

Not this??‼

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B0160F2DZ8/ref=sr_1_2_twi_pap_1_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445763290&sr=1-2

I can’t say I’ll ever be enticed into actually listening to the music in this repertoire (genre?) for pleasure, whatever this may mean, but the book looks interesting indeed. I’ll wait and see if there is more generous offer turns up.

[MrGongGong]

Not this??‼

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B0160F2DZ8/ref=sr_1_2_twi_pap_1_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445763290&sr=1-2

I can’t say I’ll ever be enticed into actually listening to the music in this repertoire (genre?) for pleasure, whatever this may mean, but the book looks interesting indeed. I’ll wait and see if there is more generous offer turns up.

I think they saw you coming!

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=microsound

[NatBalance]

Right, well first off Ferny, the simple answer to your question is that my main criterion for making my judgements about ABBA and ELO is the sound and whether I like it or not. Music is sound, and I like their sound, but explaining WHY I like their sound and why I consider it high art, equal in quality to Chopin or Holst well, that is one of the most difficult tasks, and humankind has been trying for hundreds of years to understand why we like music and that is what music theory is about ….. ooops, grand statement …. watch out for holes … where's me ladder?

So, how does someone who does not know enough theory describe why he thinks a certain piece of music is fantastic, and high art? Well, beyond saying "It is a great sound" if the music has words I could also say that I like the words, and the music and words really fit together well. If the music describes something, a scene, a story I could say that it describes it very well, I like the way certain passages do this or that, you can really see the scene in your mind's eye. I could say I like a certain chord change, or certain chords (wouldn't be able to name them of course), I like the melody, but there's just so much 'I like, I like, I like' in there. What does that mean? WHY do I like it? It's like trying to describe why you like a food recipy, and that I think is a good analogy. It seems to me that the 'WHY' has a lot to do with your biology, the rhythms of your body, and of course your mind, the way your brain ticks, and the experiences it has had.

So with that last statement in mind perhaps this would give you an idea of the way my brain ticks with regards to music. Let's have another listen to that wonderful simple walze by Chopin. I can say that this perfomance I linked earlier is dull, robotic, too slow, and without feeling, and I would judge it as a bad performance (can't remember, perhaps I played like that at that age):-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxC9Aqumv0g

Whereas this performance I judge a great artistic one with feeling and the energy of a walze:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZJt-oWDD7U

This is also a brilliant performance with feeling but for me (at the moment) she plays it a little too slowly:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewLmCETf1HU

The difference in my judgement between the Ashkenazy and the Shani Diluka (woman in red) is purely subjective and says nothing at all about the ability of the two pianists, another day my preference might be reversed and a big part of that judgement also depends on how it was played when you first heard the piece, but the difference between those two professionals and the unprofessional girl playing, now can that be called subjective? Is that actually a bad performance? After all, she is playing all the right notes.

If someone (without seeing or knowing anything about the pianists) judged the 1st performance the best, what reasons do we give that that person is wrong?

We can say that it is a robotic performance without feeling, but the person who placed that performance as the best may prefer that particular walze played like a slow steady march, just like I like it played a bit faster than it seems to be normally played. There are many performances of many pieces where I think the rubarto is completely wrong and ruins the piece so much that I would call it a bad performance, but who's right? Is anybody right? Music is subjective. At what point do you say someone's judgement is a bad judgement as opposed to a subjective judgement and just a matter of taste? Likewise at what point do you declare a piece of music is not a piece of art?

Let's have a go at explaining my criterion for judging ELO high art. I think they are a fantastic group, I love the way they add a touch of classical to some of their pieces, and the Bach (and possibly Rachmaninov) at the end of Mr Blue Sky was utter genius. Their combination of sounds, the way they combine strings and wordless womens chorus to some of their music always sends a shiver down my spine. One of my favourites is actually the B side to Mr Blue Sky, One Summer Dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywcg3d9tgy4

It does exactly what it says on the tin (title), it makes you dream. I love the way the drums come in at the beginning and there is a downward trend to the chord sequences and melody that stops you getting too excited and keeps you relaxed. The words paint pictures in your mind that the music enhances and there is a warmth that flows over you and takes you to a place so relaxing and beautifull you don't want it to stop. As far as I am concerned the quality of this piece equals to quality of something like Debussy's Prélude à l'Après-Midi d'un Faune (cripes what a title, thank goodness for copy and paste) and my criterion for making that judgement is that it has the ability to create an equal intenstity of feeling within me …. hey, that's a good one. Just thought of that one now. I'll highlight that. It almost answers your question on its own Ferny.

The only reason I put ELO and ABBA into the 'high' art category is simply because they are some of my favourites. I'm not sure I would call any music I have heard unartistic. When I was a kid I used to hate certain music, like all classical music except Chopin, but gradually I grew up to see the artistic beauty in all music, that's why the term 'art music' does not work for me to describe classical music becauseI would put all music into that category … well, still not sure about 4'3"
:)

Cripes, this is a long one isn't it? I bet no one will get through the whole of that lot …. and stay awake!!!

Rich

[Lat-Literal]

Right, well first off Ferny, the simple answer to your question is that my main criterion for making my judgements about ABBA and ELO is the sound and whether I like it or not. Music is sound, and I like their sound, but explaining WHY I like their sound and why I consider it high art, equal in quality to Chopin or Holst well, that is one of the most difficult tasks, and humankind has been trying for hundreds of years to understand why we like music and that is what music theory is about ….. ooops, grand statement …. watch out for holes … where's me ladder?

So, how does someone who does not know enough theory describe why he thinks a certain piece of music is fantastic, and high art? Well, beyond saying "It is a great sound" if the music has words I could also say that I like the words, and the music and words really fit together well. If the music describes something, a scene, a story I could say that it describes it very well, I like the way certain passages do this or that, you can really see the scene in your mind's eye. I could say I like a certain chord change, or certain chords (wouldn't be able to name them of course), I like the melody, but there's just so much 'I like, I like, I like' in there. What does that mean? WHY do I like it? It's like trying to describe why you like a food recipy, and that I think is a good analogy. It seems to me that the 'WHY' has a lot to do with your biology, the rhythms of your body, and of course your mind, the way your brain ticks, and the experiences it has had.

So with that last statement in mind perhaps this would give you an idea of the way my brain ticks with regards to music. Let's have another listen to that wonderful simple walze by Chopin. I can say that this perfomance I linked earlier is dull, robotic, too slow, and without feeling, and I would judge it as a bad performance (can't remember, perhaps I played like that at that age):-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxC9Aqumv0g

Whereas this performance I judge a great artistic one with feeling and the energy of a walze:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZJt-oWDD7U

This is also a brilliant performance with feeling but for me (at the moment) she plays it a little too slowly:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewLmCETf1HU

The difference in my judgement between the Ashkenazy and the Shani Diluka (woman in red) is purely subjective and says nothing at all about the ability of the two pianists, another day my preference might be reversed and a big part of that judgement also depends on how it was played when you first heard the piece, but the difference between those two professionals and the unprofessional girl playing, now can that be called subjective? Is that actually a bad performance? After all, she is playing all the right notes.

If someone (without seeing or knowing anything about the pianists) judged the 1st performance the best, what reasons do we give that that person is wrong?

We can say that it is a robotic performance without feeling, but the person who placed that performance as the best may prefer that particular walze played like a slow steady march, just like I like it played a bit faster than it seems to be normally played. There are many performances of many pieces where I think the rubarto is completely wrong and ruins the piece so much that I would call it a bad performance, but who's right? Is anybody right? Music is subjective. At what point do you say someone's judgement is a bad judgement as opposed to a subjective judgement and just a matter of taste? Likewise at what point do you declare a piece of music is not a piece of art?

Let's have a go at explaining my criterion for judging ELO high art. I think they are a fantastic group, I love the way they add a touch of classical to some of their pieces, and the Bach (and possibly Rachmaninov) at the end of Mr Blue Sky was utter genius. Their combination of sounds, the way they combine strings and wordless womens chorus to some of their music always sends a shiver down my spine. One of my favourites is actually the B side to Mr Blue Sky, One Summer Dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywcg3d9tgy4

It does exactly what it says on the tin (title), it makes you dream. I love the way the drums come in at the beginning and there is a downward trend to the chord sequences and melody that stops you getting too excited and keeps you relaxed. The words paint pictures in your mind that the music enhances and there is a warmth that flows over you and takes you to a place so relaxing and beautifull you don't want it to stop. As far as I am concerned the quality of this piece equals to quality of something like Debussy's Prélude à l'Après-Midi d'un Faune (cripes what a title, thank goodness for copy and paste) and my criterion for making that judgement is that it has the ability to create an equal intenstity of feeling within me …. hey, that's a good one. Just thought of that one now. I'll highlight that. It almost answers your question on its own Ferny.

The only reason I put ELO and ABBA into the 'high' art category is simply because they are some of my favourites. I'm not sure I would call any music I have heard unartistic. When I was a kid I used to hate certain music, like all classical music except Chopin, but gradually I grew up to see the artistic beauty in all music, that's why the term 'art music' does not work for me to describe classical music becauseI would put all music into that category … well, still not sure about 4'3"
:)

Cripes, this is a long one isn't it? I bet no one will get through the whole of that lot …. and stay awake!!!

Rich

Are concepts of height helpful? Rachmaninoff is in the Premiership. Addinsell is in 23rd position in the fourth tier that is known as League Two. Some of the output of 17 year old Debussy can easily be dismissed as juvenilia. Consequently it is essentially down at the level of Sunday League. That doesn't impact on the fact that Debussy the composer is still in the Premiership. Any inconvenient facts are merely brushed aside. Similar points can be made for The Beatles and The Nolan Sisters. It is quite clear on what sort of level each of those played but then try to argue rationally that "Love Me Do" is a whopping 6 foot 6 and "I'm in The Mood for Dancing" is 4 foot 5. You would, I think, find it quite difficult to do.

Some will say that classical music is in the Premiership and pop and rock music can never be there. I have a genuine understanding of that position. However, it is immediately brought down by focussing minds on the afternoon Addinsell played in the cup against the Beatles. As everyone recalls, the Beatles won that game by 8 goals to 1. So I think essentially it is about perceptions of quality. That may involve some universal acceptance but it will also be about individuality. Often someone supports a certain team because it is the team that was supported by earlier generations in the family. The three chord Quo may be admired for their cleverness in working with the primary colours so imaginatively. Equally, they may be loathed for their simplicity. I came to appreciate them more when a number of Rossi's ornaments - three I think - travelled from a boot sale to my parents' living room. Those are not in a position that is especially high or low but I could put forward an argument in support of them based on a certain quality as I see it in that relocation.

[doversoul1]

NatBalance
Sorry to repeat myself but just in case you missed this but what do you say to this (#154)?

Do you think this NatBalance is having us on? He has managed to notch up 140 plus posts on this thread without taking in one single point that has been explained to him. If he is genuine, I find this quite extraordinary

.

Never mind. I am thoroughly enjoying watching Master GG making you dance.

Seriously, there are many ways of talking about music but if you want to engage people, you need to know how to talk about it. You don’t need to know any theories about music. I don’t but I have learned more or less everything about music and how to think and talk about music by (and through) reading this forum. I recommend you give yourself time to read what and how others say on other threads on this forum.

[Lat-Literal]

......I will address the Abba and ELO point directly. There are a couple of issues here. First, there is the word "tribes" which is important because they are found in all music. Those who appreciate early classical music may not always enjoy John Cage. Coltrane enthusiasts and fans of "Tiger Rag" are not necessarily always on the same bus as each other.

From the mid 1950s if not earlier, pop and rock were exceptionally tribal, being so closely linked to youth. Swathes of music were dismissed and often opposed by individuals on the basis that the records weren't in their chosen boxes. That sort of tribalism was diluted when society had dropped its obsessions with teenagers. It had, of course, been a reaction to earlier times when teenagers were barely allowed to exist. Anyhow, so mainstream are teenagers now that they exist in anyone of any age, especially in Westminster.

Hip hop is 36 and rock n roll is in its 60s so it doesn't make huge amounts of sense to do a "my gang against your gang". As for genuine teenagers today, they have so many long-term pressures that few have any time for such things. All have been required to be culturally conglomerated. There was, though, an era when someone who was "into" Pink Floyd would have refused to carry Abba's "Arrival" under their arm in public. Most punks would have asked for anything by ELO to be placed in a brown paper bag. What the passing of time has done is enable reassessment in the absence of tribalism for anyone wanting to reassess. Many do. Most view it as irrelevant given what else is going on in their lives.

That leads me to the second issue. It is about composition and arrangement and hence musical rather than socio-political. One looks either for moments of innovation or classicism of some kind. Innovation is rare and classicism isn't commonplace. Some will stick a bit of baroque instrumentation on a song that barely hangs together. It is the same one that has been heard every month for the past 20 years with different words and a slightly different tune. Vocally it sounds washed out at best. There is no way on earth it will convince.

Classic songwriting is not a style as such. Rather it is the clear demonstration of an understanding of musical structure. There is no doubt at all that the writers in both Abba and ELO were very strong in that respect. Then I think one can look at the nod towards actual classical music in some of their output which is not necessarily a feature of all classic songwriting. It is certainly integral to the stately "SOS". In contrast, "Mr Blue Sky" is a continuation of what George Martin did for Lennon and McCartney. I would say that the classicism is more about the adornment. The notion that it's genuinely classical is too big a push but it does have a classical sensibility. Whether or not one finds it attractive - I do find it attractive and more than I did in the 1970s - there is no doubting Lynne has a mastery of his trade and hence he has been able to produce work of considerable quality.

Abba - SOS, probably '75 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f19GKcZU1vg

ELO - Mr Blue Sky in 2014 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMY5xe36cfE

[MrGongGong]

......I will address the Abba and ELO point directly.

I used to be on the insurance of one of the cars owned by a well known London orchestra.
So in the glovebox were a pile of CDs
including .... several of that orchestra's recordings of mainstream "classical" repertoire as well as Kind of Blue etc
but in the CD player was Abbas greatest hits

Make of that what you will

[NatBalance]

Do you think this NatBalance is having us on? He has managed to notch up 140 plus posts on this thread without taking in one single point that has been explained to him. If he is genuine, I find this quite extraordinary

Sorry Dover but you've completely lost me with this one. 140 posts? Where does that come from? Doesn't it state I've posted 29 posts?

What do you mean by 'taken in'? Do mean agree with?