Your Roots

My dad plays bass guitar with a bunch of bands so I guess that's where I get my roots

[big long awesome post]

Hear, hear! :thumbsup:

All right, this is for Composer Phil and anyone who wants a summary:

I like classical music the best. It is more powerful and deep emotionally, to me, than any other music. I can't explain why, and trying would be pointless. I listen to other music too, and even like some of it, and maybe someday I'll grow to love it too like classical. So until then please stop telling me (and Heckel) I'm backwards and can't appreciate art.

Edit: Thanks for the support, Tokke. :)

....and when did I say you and Heckel were backwards and couldn't appreciate art?

You didn't. I was referring to VoodooChild & co's earlier, more inflammatory comments. Sorry I confused you there.

@Heckel, sorry I keep mentioning your name just like you don't want me to. It's just that as far as I can tell we share very similar musical tastes and so I took all the flack pointed at you rather personally. I'll stop now, I promise.

To reiterate for the umpteenth time: a good composer can take away and draw influence from any and all kinds of music. It doesn't mean you have to enjoy said music or listen to it all the time in order to gain something from it.

For example:

I don't like hip hop. I hate the lyrical content and lack of harmonic development. That being said: I find the development of the rhythmic motives to be inspirational and the combination of that with the improvisational nature of the music is pretty mind blowing.

So this is the real heart of the debate. Should have been more obvious to me before. Interesting point. I still have to disagree though. I doubt most of the great composers of the past several hundred years took inspiration from ALL the music they heard. Take Mozart, for example. The man was an arrogant <not very nice name here>. He held most of his contemporaries in utter disdain. And he produced some of the most brilliant music the world has ever known, including my favorite oboe concerto (all right, it's a 3-way tie between Mozart's and Vaughn Williams' and Marcello's, but whatever). Maybe recent popular artists are more open minded than Mozart. I still like Mozart's music better.

As for me personally, I can't get much out of hip hop because I find most the content so offensive I just won't listen to it. If I want rhythm + improvisation, some good jazz usually does the trick (and adds distinguishable pitches too, which are often, though not always, lacking in hip hop). I admit that the way things are worded in hip hop/rap flows really nicely, but that's about it, and I can't see how to apply that to my music personally. If that makes me a bad composer, sorry. I don't really see it changing any time soon.

No one is trying to tell you what to listen to. No need to post an autobiography as to why you listen to the music you do.

I wish that was true, but I see lots of people trying to tell me what I should listen to by way of such statements as "anyone who can't appreciate X genre is an idiot". As for the 2nd sentence, in all seriousness, I thought that that was the entire point of this topic before it got hijacked by the debate. Why we listen to (and write) the music that we do. If I was wrong then most of my original post was made under a false assumption.

and “pop” seems to mean any music written/produced for more commercial/popular appeal purposes.

Well, since you are completely and utterly wrong in your definition of what pop music is, there's really not much more I can say about your post.

Well, since you are completely and utterly wrong in your definition of what pop music is, there's really not much more I can say about your post.

Care to elaborate with a proper definition of "pop"? .... also, are we talking about "pop" music, or "Pop" music?

I also want to address again the point that classical music is more complex than pop music. Obviously that's true in most cases, although as I've said there is plenty of complex popular music out there. Most of it takes heavy influence from classical music. There are lots of rock musicians out there who love classical music and blend the two genres together and thus get a very complex form of rock music that is very technically demanding to perform.

Google Yngwie Malmsteen if you've never heard of him. Most musicians I know HATE Malmsteen. Why? His music is complex for the sake of being complex. A lot of classical music is like that. Don't try to deny it. The people of this thread who prefer classical music are obviously in the vast minority of people in the world. Now, you may say that makes you "true artists" because you compose for yourself only... but we all know that's bullshit. The great popular musicians are no different. They make music because they are compelled to, money and fame are just bonuses.

Most people I know believe that music should be something organic that flows out of you and if you think about it at ALL, you've thought too much.

That's the reason I would rather listen to this guy play piano:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=BXDI0cEDLrI

over this guy:

all day every day. That White Stripes song is as simple as it gets. A three chord pop song with a fourth chord thrown in for special occasions. It was probably written in five minutes. And that to me makes it much more "artistic" than most classical pieces.

Care to elaborate with a proper definition of "pop"? .... also, are we talking about "pop" music, or "Pop" music?

I was under the impression that we were using the definition of "basically anything that's not classical." But my reply had more to do with his definition of the motivations of the musicians rather than the music itself. Obviously to everyone else "pop" music means Katy Perry which is exactly what he described. But here I was under the impression that pop included rock and roll, rock, blues, metal, hip hop and every other genre derived from them.

over this guy:

After something about how some classical music is complex simply for the sake of being complex and music has to be organic, I expected some Stockhausen or Xenakis or something, but you link to Bach. What?

Tone it down man. You are coming across just as elitist as the people you are criticizing in this thread.

After something about how some classical music is complex simply for the sake of being complex and music has to be organic, I expected some Stockhausen or Xenakis or something, but you link to Bach. What?

Tone it down man. You are coming across just as elitist as the people you are criticizing in this thread.

I literally just posted the first video that came up for the first classical pianist I thought of. You already know that I'm not an expert on classical music.

And I don't see how I am coming across as elitist. I didn't say that classical music sucks and that Glenn Gould was a hack... I'm just saying I (and most other people) prefer simple, pure, organic music. A lot of classical music is like that. But most of it's not. And note I said PREFER, not "only listen to." A lot of people here ONLY LISTEN TO classical music, apparently. There's nothing I can do about that... you like what you like I guess, and all I can say is you're missing out on a lot.

Oh no. :dry: not again.

Oboe: yea we like long posts :D thanks for being nice btw.

Yngwie?

Arpmandude is better.

Learn some humility, won't you - Gould is a master at his craft. I have never heard of any other pianist with such an intuitive grasp of phrasing and counterpoint -Pollini does not come even close in this respect. And how is simplicity "natural", or "artistic"? Has it never occurred to you that Bach was also writing down what was natural and artistic to him? Is some random fanfiction anymore "natural" or "artistic" than Shakespeare or Wilde, simply because it was written by an author with only a tiny fraction of the technical facility of the former? Natural. Artistic.These are just words which you selective apply to things which you like or dislike! They describe nothing - how do you tell if something is more "natural" or "artistic" than the other?

And how is "prefer" any different than "only listen to" - would anyone in their right mind do something which they do not like over something else which they prefer? Enough with this charade and facade of "open-mindedness" and "rationality" - it's sickening.

Most people I know are Muslims. Thus everyone is Muslim. Logical fallacy much?

The majority of the world does not appreciate science - does this mean that science is useless, and is only "scientific" to scientists? Is economics only applicable to economists? Physics to physicists? Why should it bother us that our works do not have the same reach as other genres of music, and more importantly, why should it bother you? Who's claiming to be "true" artists?

You seem to like to be in the "vast" majority. Why don't you go to some forum which is mostly populated with people who have the same views as you, and stop trolling on a forum where there is more of a mixed opinion, then?

Apparently intellectualism and art are mutually exclusive.

I wish people would stop necro-ing this issue, and concentrate on the thread's initial intentions instead (although these little "bites" have certainly revealed so much more than a post would :P)

oh no, you've defeated my arguments!

Except they weren't the arguments I actually made...

Who's claiming to be "true" artists?

I don't know, look around a bit and check out the people saying that film music, popular music, and all other kinds of music is not "true art." They even refer to their own stuff as "art music!" How pretentious is that?

You seem to like to be in the "vast" majority. Why don't you go to some forum which is mostly populated with people who have the same views as you, and stop trolling on a forum where there is more of a mixed opinion, then?

I don't mind being in the majority... why would I? I am here because I am interested in musical composition (which is what this forum is about- it's not about classical music, and even if it was I would still continue to post because I like classical music as well). It seems like YOU are the one who needs to find another forum where everyone thinks the same, because after all, it's you who is calling someone a troll simply because he doesn't have the same views as you. You actually seem angry that I like popular music. Maybe you should go outside or something.

Yngwie?

Arpmandude is better.

That was, uh, interesting. I'm kind of glad the audio quality was so low, I'm not sure I want to hear what they actually intended to sound like. :lol:

Sure, and it's the most pretentious label I've ever heard.

:facepalm:

As someone who's already been smacked over this thread: Watch the ad hominem stuff, guise.

"Art music" is a crappy term. Corrollary: all terms are relatively crappy. Make due.

"Pure and simple" is utterly baseless as terminology for music. If that were the case, then Young-style minimalism would be top-dog in that genre, as opposed to the pseudo-minimalism of say, Adams or Part, both of whom I believe get more critic-love than Glass or Reich (correct if wrong).

Oh, but Young wasn't pure and simple, since he thought about his music? What about "I am sitting in a room?" Too abstract to be pure and simple?

Sorry buddy. If Black Swans is good, then so's Ligeti.

What he was trying to do was justify his liking of a genre less complex than another. And then he took that lack of complexity, renamed it some stupid thing like "simple and organic", and used that to imply his music was superior.

He couldn't leave with "yeah classical is more complex, but that does not make it better and each to his own."

I literally just posted the first video that came up for the first classical pianist I thought of. You already know that I'm not an expert on classical music.

And I don't see how I am coming across as elitist. I didn't say that classical music sucks and that Glenn Gould was a hack... I'm just saying I (and most other people) prefer simple, pure, organic music. A lot of classical music is like that. But most of it's not. And note I said PREFER, not "only listen to." A lot of people here ONLY LISTEN TO classical music, apparently. There's nothing I can do about that... you like what you like I guess, and all I can say is you're missing out on a lot.

Wow, seems I missed a lot of discussion in this thread! So, pardon me for responding to something that was on page 11 - I'll probably respond to more here shortly! At any rate, I want to remind people that Classical Music has NEVER been the most popular type of music! The nobility were NOT a large % of the population at all. While they were listening to Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven the greater percentage were listening to folk songs! That said, when someone says: 'A lot of classical music is like that. But most of it's not.' It should be dismissed outright. Obviously, there can not be two majorities here. Either 'a lot' of it is like that OR 'a lot' of it is not. Ok, now to read the rest of this mess.

--------------------------

So, after reading the last three pages, I'm extremely confused as to what exactly you guys are arguing here. Is it just the definition of 'Art Music'? Or is it about what constitutes 'organic' music? 'Complex' music? Or is it what inspires people to write music?

1. Art Music: Music that is intended to ascend to a higher level of creative integrity and design.

I'm not exactly sure how a definition this simple can negate the possibility of other genres from reaching the designation of art music. For example, many rock bands during the 70s sought to 'elevate' the creative integrity and design of their work. Certainly some of King Crimson's tracks deserve to be called art music. So, I really think that this argument over the definition of Art Music is really... well, pointless.

2. 'Organic' Music: What? Really? What constitutes organic? Are the same things you consider organic in music the same things I consider organic in music? Would a person who listens to rock exclusively find classical music organic? Would a person who listens to classical music exclusively find blues to be organic? I don't think that this can be defined to the point where it could even constitute a valid argument in a discussion. In other words, Organic Music is a vague designation that changes from one person to the next.

3. Complex Music: I nearly lol'd when I read the implications that folk music was not complex. Folk music can be quite complex at times just like any type of music. What sets folk music apart from classical music isn't complexity, it's the handling of musical material. So, there goes that argument.

4. Inspiration: A person can be influenced by any stimulus. Period. You would think that with well over 1000 years of the western musical tradition, that that point would be made very clear. We've had composers who have produced masterpieces without ever having heard of the work of other composers. We've had composers who have produced masterpieces with an extreme knowledge of other composers work. We've even had composers who have been influenced by folk music! I think it's clear to say that this argument isn't really an argument at all. So, to say that:

exposure to other kinds music proves to be beneficial to composers who are considered successful

Doesn't quite stand up to the evidence accumulated over the last 1000 years. Just saying.

You didn't understand my statement (it's okay as you admitted to being a little lost as there are many different debates that are going on).

My original point: a good composer can gather something influential from all kinds of music. (A suggestion to people absolutely refusing to give popular music the time of day)

The counter-argument: there have been great composers in the past who refused to learn something from humbler forms of music.

My rebuttal: said composer may have been "great", but they would have undoubtedly been greater had they try to gather influence from a wide range of sources

Oh no, I got what you were saying here. I think you missed the purpose of my rebuttal though. You're arguing that one can be greater if they gathered influence from other sources (like birdsong, popular music, bubbling brooks, people conversing, etc.) That's a noble argument, but I think it falls rather short though. Some may gain something from this, others may not. What makes a work great is hard to distinguish - thus why I said your argument doesn't really stand up to the evidence accumulated over the past 1000 years. One shining example comes in the music of Karol Szymanowski. He was influenced by a myriad of composers and musical styles. Yet, his music never quite reached the status of greatness. Some critics even argued that all the influences had adversely impacted his compositions. From one composition to the next, he became a chameleon and adopted the stylistic traits of each of his influences (including the now unknown composers of the folk music he studied). If we take your argument and apply it here... we see it fails. Szymanowski had vast influences... but still his music never achieved greatness.

That said, I think it's important to state again:

The factors that make a composer great are many and vary from composer to composer individually. Some composers thrive off of listening to other musical styles, others become debilitated by listening to anything (even other classical). Beethoven thrived while deaf! Mozart thrived by having ingenuity. Haydn thrived by reinventing musical conventions (mind you, he created the modern symphony and string quartet!) I could go on and on. There's no clear factor that makes a composer great. Unless of course, you know of one?

I'm not really arguing at this point. Just calling out VoodooChild's hypocrisy and assholity.

Google Yngwie Malmsteen if you've never heard of him. Most musicians I know HATE Malmsteen. Why? His music is complex for the sake of being complex. A lot of classical music is like that. Don't try to deny it. The people of this thread who prefer classical music are obviously in the vast minority of people in the world. Now, you may say that makes you "true artists" because you compose for yourself only... but we all know that's bullshit. The great popular musicians are no different. They make music because they are compelled to, money and fame are just bonuses.

Most people I know believe that music should be something organic that flows out of you and if you think about it at ALL, you've thought too much.

That's the reason I would rather listen to this guy play piano:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=BXDI0cEDLrI

over this guy:

all day every day. That White Stripes song is as simple as it gets. A three chord pop song with a fourth chord thrown in for special occasions. It was probably written in five minutes. And that to me makes it much more "artistic" than most classical pieces.

Read that and tell me he didn't imply his preference of music is superior.

The thing is: I never said drawing influences makes a composer "great". There is a difference between a composer becoming a great composer, and an already great composer, becoming greater. What I did say, however, was that a good composer is able to find influential merit in any kind of music, and that said composer can and will benefit from said influence.

That's a generalization though. Not every good composer will find influential merit in any kind of music and benefit from it. To address, though, your statement that you never said drawing influences makes a composer great: Szymanowski is considered a great composer... just one that isn't up to the level of other great composers despite having a much more broader pallet of influences. Perhaps I should've been more clearer in my example there (sorry :() Regardless, to imply that a great composer will become greater due to exposure to other musical genres is the same thing as stating a composer will become great due to exposure to other musical genres. This is due to the fact that your practically stating that exposure to other musical genres is beneficial to the composer - which I'm not arguing against. What I am stating, however, is that where it may benefit some.. it can (and has) become detrimental to others. It's not as simple as what your stating.

That said, I'm not against listening to other musical genres at all. I listen to a lot of different genres and do so regularly. Would I recommend others to do so? Absolutely!

Also: I never insisted that a composer should constantly be submerging him or herself in other music. As well as this: copying a style is not the same as being influenced by it. So I am at a loss as to how the past 1000 years has shown that influence in itself, has been detrimental to composers (given that they aren't attempting to drown themselves in it nor copy said influence, rather than being influenced by it).

It's neither detrimental or helpful as a whole. Individually, it varies from composer to composer. Again, some may take a lot of influence from other musical styles and others may be harmed by it. It's not black and white. It's not as simple as saying: studying x will aide y. The past 1000 years hasn't shown influence in itself is detrimental to composers. I never said that it did :blink:. What I said was:

A person can be influenced by any stimulus. Period. You would think that with well over 1000 years of the western musical tradition, that that point would be made very clear. We've had composers who have produced masterpieces without ever having heard of the work of other composers. We've had composers who have produced masterpieces with an extreme knowledge of other composers work. We've even had composers who have been influenced by folk music! I think it's clear to say that this argument isn't really an argument at all.

What this means is.... there are many different influences a successful composer can draw on to become greater. Where one composer may gain great benefit from listening to the latest track by Beyonce or Avenged Sevenfold, another composer may gain great benefit from sitting in a room isolated from the world. That's been the case over the past 1000 years... and it probably will be the case for the next 1000 years. Thus, to utilize that as an argument in a debate is flawed.

No: it isn't. That is like saying adding an entire floor to an existing house, is the same as merely adding a balcony to one of the bedrooms. Becoming widely recognized as a "great" composer, is a landmark in one's life. Already being great, and becoming greater, is an improvement.

A composer =/= a house. As nice as that analogy is... it isn't the same thing OR the same concept. Yes, a great composer can become greater (like Beethoven). A composer can become great (like Schubert). A great composer can also lose that greatness. As you said though.. great/greater/greatest are all relative terms AND they are hard to designate - particularly when applied to something like composition. What makes one composer great (a horribly bout of Syphilis, for instance) may not make another great composer great. That's why I said: this is NOT a black and white thing here.

...However, said composer who allows other music to become detrimental to their process, no matter how scarcely they are exposed to it, would benefit from changing their outlook. They may be great, but they certainly could be greater (keeping in mind that "greater" is relative. It doesn't mean that they come an exponentially greater composer than they previously were). Tell me: if a composer is out at a social event and is exposed to a music of different style than his own, is it a detriment for him, even though he is simply relaxing and not forced to pay attention to it? Could this composer listen in occasionally and briefly think about what is going on the music?

Depends on the individual to be honest. People don't operate uniformly like that. Where one person would definitely receive benefit... another wouldn't. We're just like that as a species. In some cases, it's not as easy as saying: change your outlook! Some composers, like Chopin, operate best while isolated from outside influences. Others, like Brahms, take in LOTS of influences and operate best with them! Thus, I'm not going to say that listening to other music will make a great composer greater.

I am not insisting that listening to other music and attempting to draw influence from it, should be a fundamental part of a composers process (god forbid). You seem to be thinking I'm suggesting that receiving influence is the path to any given composer's success, when really, I am insisting that is beneficial: whether it may be the sparked curiosity of a folk style, or a mere internalization of how a bridge is contrasted in a pop tune. It doesn't mean the composer has to force himself to sit down in an empty room and listen to said music (that would definitely be counter productive). I am simply saying a composer should keep his ears open and listen to what is going on. It doesn't even have to be music. It could be a garbage truck waking him up at 6 am, a bunch of dogs barking and causing a ruckus, or perhaps some asshole driving by with his music bumped up all the way.

I agree with this. My argument here isn't that a person CANT receive benefit from it. My argument here is that not every person will benefit from the same stimuli - thus to use that as an argument, as you were, isn't really a good support to your argument. That's the entire purpose behind this thread as well: Voce wanted to hear all the different ways people here are inspired to write. If those influences were universal (as many here suggested in this argument), then Voce wouldn't even have to ask the question since he would already know the answers.

A composer's path to greatness is one of his or her own, however, undoubtedly they have been exposed to some kind of music other than that of their own style and gained something from it, be it something significant or trivial. I firmly believe this and perhaps it may literally be hard to prove, but probably much harder to disprove.

I believe this too actually. Unless you were born on a lonely island that is isolated from civilization as a whole.... you have heard music. Whether that music influences you or not is a wonderful debate! I would, and have insisted in this short exchange, argue that it depends on the individual in question. Thus, your first half of the first sentence (in bold) would be my position. :)

K lemme just say that this idea that "classical music is complex for the sake of being complex" is horseshit.

Certainly there was a period immediately after the second World War during which some people (Adorno) strove for music that eliminated ties to traditional elements like conjuct melody etc etc. but even music like what came out of Stockhausen and Boulez isn't complex "just 'cause". The language is merely a means to an end, that end being artistic expression just like what comes out of Tom Waits or Lady Gaga or whatever.

Yngwe's music is complex?

:huh:

(@ voce, +1 for the Tom Waits reference)

K lemme just say that this idea that "classical music is complex for the sake of being complex" is horseshit.

Certainly there was a period immediately after the second World War during which some people (Adorno) strove for music that eliminated ties to traditional elements like conjuct melody etc etc. but even music like what came out of Stockhausen and Boulez isn't complex "just 'cause". The language is merely a means to an end, that end being artistic expression just like what comes out of Tom Waits or Lady Gaga or whatever.

*applauds* at least we're sorta getting back on subject!