ThePianoMan121

All music has time or effort spent on it. It doesn't spring out of nothingness.

Geez, let's not retread that whole "music is physics" argument again. How does something cease being music if it has a function in social interaction? I'd like to hear your definition of "music."

I found that interview fascinating. Thanks for posting the link.

Of the popular music bands I've seen live (several dozen would probably be an accurate estimate, not as much as I'd like to, but a decent start), all of the bands that I've really respected have been able to get it fairly close. Of course the little quirks, the third and fourth layers of guitars, that kind of stuff, has to be lost, but the musicianship and skill I hear on the recording is still there. I'd be very disappointed if I saw a "pop" artist at a performance and their playing was much worse than it was on the album. Oh, I realize that. I love studio editing, production - that kind of stuff fascinates me. But I still don't think a serious artist should use technology to give the illusion they're a more talented artist than they are. If you can't play a part for a song you write, you should practice harder - not get the computer to do it for you. There are a lot of fascinating, valid uses for technology and computers, but fudging sloppy performances is not, in my opinion, one of them.

That's not what I was referring to. Artists might not be able to nail each song in one take, and might combine a few takes to get the part "perfect," but if they're at all decent, they can actually play the parts they write well. Otherwise seeing them live would be a miserable experience.

Serious artists don't use "studio magic" to fudge parts.

Atonality may not be a system, but serialism/dodecaphony certainly is.

Actually, the contraction for am and not is "ain't."

Hackneyed symphonic riffs do not classical music make.

Then you're not listening to the right metal. Check out Virgin Black and Aletheian, to start.

Some is, some is more rock-based.

Er, I mean it's a reference to the opus number of...um...dang, Webern doesn't have a 121st opus, does he. Yeah, it's a punk band.

Tough one, but overall I find the piano more interesting musically than the violin (by a hair; they're both tremendous instruments). So Liszt.

The "121" in my name is actually a reference to a semi-obscure punk band, believe it or not. ;) Hey now, speak for yourself.

Well, the topic's question wasn't classical in general, but classical from a specific time period. In answer, I feel sorry for anyone who only likes one specific type of music and can't enjoy others. It's extremely limiting to be confined to one genre or style when there are so many others out there - you're missing so much! Not to mention, listening to only one type of music can only have a disadvantageous effect on your music.