Leaderboard

This whole discussion made me think of the galant schema and how people listened to music much differently back then (between the Baroque and Classical eras) and how nuanced it was at the time. Today, people who listen to music from, either the Baroque, or the Classical eras aren't well versed in the different patterns of Galant music and could therefore be said to not really understand where Classical music itself came from. Back in the 18th century it was the responsibility of any courtesan who considers themselves a respectably trained amateur musician to be able to recognize by ear the galant schema which music at the time was constructed out of. Not only that, but they should be well versed enough to be able to seperate schema "of good taste" and "of poor taste" and be able to make suggestions on how to improve music "of poor taste". Today, few are as well versed in the schema as to be able to recognize them by ear, much less to be able to have developed a taste for particular patterns over others (I started Gjerdingen's Music in the Galant Style, but have thusfar not finished it yet). I think it's natural for music to evolve and for some types of music to become dated or obsolete. Familiarity of such music, once it goes out of style diminishes naturally, and few people continue to champion it. But I don't think the masses, for having moved on, should be counted out of being considered to be able to understand music that has been surpassed by a new style. If you understand Baroque music, or Galant music, or Classical music, or Romantic music then you champion those particular musics. I don't think there's a need to make any blanket statements about the whole of the oeuvre of the whole of music history.

I define understanding classical music as being able to identify the trasnformations and recapitulations of different motifs and themes throughout a piece of music and along all four time periods of classical music (this doesn’t mean that you have to like all periods, but understand them, because without this clause, people who understand that a melody in a classical style piece by Mozart or Haydn is recapitulated exactly the same at the end, but know nothing else about it would be grouped with people who understand the transformation of different motifs in really complex works such as a fugue, a complex classical sonata or a Liszt sonata). It doesn’t have to be a composer specifically Share your thoughts Manuel

So a bit of shameless self-promotion I guess, but my first ever album of orchestral music in a more classic-hollywood style, aimed at the adventure movie genre for TV and Film licensing is out now. I'm fairly amped about it. You can listen to it on all major music platforms: https://amadeamusicproductions.fanlink.tv/lost-worlds but at the time of writing, Spotify has it attributed to another guy with the same name, as I've not been on Spotify before now. I'm sure that will be rectified shortly. Anyway here are a few tracks from it on YouTube. Skim through it if you like and I'd appreciate to know which ones you like the most.

Because it is lol More specifically, atonalism in general. I don't want to go too far into one my trademark anti-atonalism rants but to try to keep it short Not really, but let's say for a moment that it is complex. Complex does not automatically equate to "good". The complexity must still be highly musical and intelligible, this is why John Williams is so revered in the film music world. It also true that theoretically any performance can be "expressive", but an expressive violin performance of bad music is still bad music. The point of music is to sound good at a minimum. What is "good or bad" meets a lot more consistent, objective criteria than modernists want to believe and is recognizable across generations and cultures. Play a Mozart Sonata and one of Schoenberg's back to back for people who have no interest in "classical" music, in any country in the world, and you will find they prefer the Mozart one every time. Because it is a better piece of music. The entire development of music as a craft, art and science is rooted in tonality and mastery of it. Atonality is therefore a rejection of this history and thereby music itself. It is thoroughly anti-music. So I would say it is more than fair to call it "garbage". Because not everyone may share the same taste or precise aesthetics and not everyone can be pleased does not mean that objective standards of quality do not exist, however. Not everyone agrees that the world is round, but that does not mean that their perception of reality is equally valid. However, I do notice that most of the people who call John Williams' music "Kitsch" tend to be those producing the low-effort "garbage" I just finished disparaging, and I'm sure that is related. In regards to Zimmer and minimalism, while it is true what I said previously about complexity, it is also true that you require a certain amount of complexity to be musical at all. This is a big reason for Zimmer's failure. The Dune score is nothing but boring drones and pads. Why this is all relevant to your thread is that for the better part of 100 years now, corrupt academics and suits have promoted woefully unmusical examples of the orchestra or piano and this has caused laymen to dismiss "classical" music because they do not "get it".

Hello @PeterthePapercomPoser Don’t worry, you were just expressing your thoughts on my definition for music’s sake, and I have to admit that I also thought my definition may have been offensive and seemed too agressive, so that is why I had to reply to clarify that I did not mean to discourage people that don’t fit my description. I think this is a heated topic for everyone. This is a really good example and I didn’t think about it, it was so good that it made me change my mind about my definition (take that as something good because I am really stubborn). So, now taking this exceptions and similar ideas you mentioned as the serialism that are completely different. How would you define the understanding of classical music? Would you define it as the understanding of a specific form? Specific style? Specific form and style? Specific composer? Specific piece? Thanks for sharing your opinion Manuel

Composers who lived and worked in the classical era and their music followed trends at the time. Understanding any of the nuances of how they typically ended a phrase as opposed to the Romantic era or whatever are really not relevant, especially not for listeners. What matters is that people often lump all (old) orchestral music in with "classical" which means that tragically, second Viennese school garbage gets lumped in with the greats and tarnishes their good name. I feel that might've been by design... All you really need to do to make people understand is when they say "Classical music? You mean like Hans Zimmer?" is say "No, like Mozart".

But it is always possible to invent some new style of music which people who understand all the other styles that came before wouldn't be able to understand. Say for example a style of composing music in which all the musical material has to be derived from quotes of other composer's works (this might be a sort of a form of musical maximalism). One wouldn't be able to understand the music very well without a wide ranging familiarity with works which might be quoted in the newly composed piece of music. Hence according to your definition, wouldn't be counted among those who understand classical music. And to say the least, the 20th century especially is full of a plurality of musical styles which are much more difficult to understand than previous periods in music history, which means that according to your definition people who don't understand spectral music or that can't hear tone rows in 12-tone serialism would be counted among those who don't understand classical music, which I think is a bit extreme. Edit: sorry I just realized that what I wrote might be a bit critical of your definition. I just think that it's enough that people understand those pieces of classical music which they find most palatable not necessarily all periods of classical music. Edit no.2: I'll copy and paste what I wrote in the chat box here as well: I personally believe that there are many people who are capable of understanding classical music (unless you're talking about more recent 20th century innovations) but, say for example Mozart's music I believe to be very lucid and easy to understand and admire by a common populace ... look at for example the popularity of the movie "Amadeus" in which Mozart's music is very liberally used as the soundtrack to the film .. I don't think it was anything outside of the capability of common people to understand.

I would say Bach's vocal music in general. Whenever I hear someone say they like Bach, it almost always actually mean they like his instrumental works. Which is a real shame: you can add up his entire instrumental oeuvre, and it would not outlast even his Leipzig cantatas.

Hey thanks a ton Henry! Congrats also on the 2000th post. You're the busiest bee on the forums! It's actually not for games, it's for TV. So if you do more TV then you may hear it there haha. Thanks so much, Luis. I forgot that you're Spanish. So it means a lot to know that you approve of Fancy Footwork. The percussion was a last minute purchase; I didn't really have a lot of time to compare flamenco or tango percussion libraries but that one was the best value I could find that had everything I needed: Tap dancers, cajons, castanets, etc. Appreciate the feedback so far I have also swapped in this thread Temple of The Jaguar out with "The Race to El Dorado"

WOW, an amazing piece of work!! Kind regards, alecia

I see you like Scriabin, you have quoted (or at least I think they are quotes) the third, fourth, fifth, seventh and ninth. The beginning with low tremolos like the fifth The first theme sounds a lot like the fourth’s second movement As you have mentioned, the arpegiated texture and even the marking etcinelant comes from the seventh The repeated notes, specially the ones around bar 74 3:00 have similar rhythms as the ones in the ninth The leading to the recapitulation of the second theme in a majestic way sounds like the reintroducing of the melody from the third movement of the third at the end of the fourth movement I think it is fine to quote composers sometimes, and specially in this case is justified because it is in most cases a different style. Are my conjectures too far from what you thought when you were composing this? Thanks for sharing Manuel

Wow. This music is fantastic. The Annubis Gate totally takes you to those middle eastern environments, even if it's in our imagination. I think it picks up very well Mediterranean elements and scales, for a moment it reminded me of Verdi's Aida. Oh... The second piece Fancy Footwork..... It sounds absolutely Spanish (which is my nationality and I know what I'm saying). There are some sounds that could sound more natural in the percussion, maybe (castanets?). But it is fantastic, sumptuous and the whole Arab-Andalusian tradition comes to mind. Fantastic. Temple of the Jaguar. I think it's the one that sounds more "cinematic". Perfect the brass, the guttural "voices" like from Mongolia. It is a very powerful piece. In conclusion, it is a MAGNIFICENT work. Not only because it is wonderfully orchestrated, but because of the ideas and how they are intertwined and carried. I love it.

Let's aim for October 1 or sooner. I need time to review all the works, then create the video.

Hey Chris @AngelCityOutlaw, They are all very distinctive game music and I like them all. My favourite is the Temple of Jaguar. I always like in your music you use texture and timbre wisely by not overbearing it with huge sound and suffocating thick texture, but always in apt with your theme and mood. Hope that adventure game go well!! (Even though I seldom play game at all!) And thx for sharing! Henry (oh it’s my 2000th post!)