classical music: more metal than metal

[Nephew Twiddleton]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Also, not to be that guy but I think that "classical" is being used loosely here. Also, by wobbley vocals in opera, am I to take that as vibrato? (I also hate gratuitous vibrato in vocals. It's a spice, not a main ingredient).

That said, you said Mozart was ok. I suppose you have to narrow down what you want to hear. What about Mozart just makes him just ok or Beethoven only can take so much? Pleasing to the ear is relative. What is pleasing to your ear?

I have trouble listening to Mozart myself, since his stuff sounds, generally, not heavy enough. Beethoven sounds heavier.

What I don't like about Mozart is, as you said, it's very "light." It's the musical embodiment of the word "dainty." It's pretty, but it has no gravitas. Beyond that, Mozart's harmonies are too predictable and there's no awesome counterpoint going on.

Beethoven is heavier, more substantive. But his music relies a little too much on scales and arpeggios to bridge between ideas - which makes it listenable but after a while it gets sort of monotonous. Also Beethoven's arrangements are predictable (intro/buildup -> hook -> noodling -> repeat twice -> hook 2 -> noodling -> next movement).

To put concisely what I'm looking for I guess it would be a classical music Frankenstein stitched together from the melodic and harmonic ability of Beethoven, the dynamic range of Brahms, and the get-to-the-fucking-hook-alreadyness of Metallica.

Dainty's a good word for it.

Hmmm. Will have to think about this.

It's musically simple but what do you think about Gregorian chant?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

What about Mussorgskiy?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

To put concisely what I'm looking for I guess it would be a classical music Frankenstein stitched together from the melodic and harmonic ability of Beethoven, the dynamic range of Brahms, and the get-to-the-fucking-hook-alreadyness of Metallica.

Here ya go, ya son of a bitch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=822U0Lof1zQ

And the wikipedia entry for your Princess-and-the-Pea ass:

"Prokofiev modeled the symphony's structure on Beethoven's last piano sonata (Op. 111): a tempestuous minor-key first movement followed by a set of variations. The first movement, in traditional sonata form, is rhythmically unrelenting, harmonically dissonant, and texturally thick. The second movement, twice as long as the first, comprises a set of variations on a plaintive, diatonic theme played on the oboe, which provides strong contrast to the defiant coda of the first movement. The subsequent variations contrast moments of beautiful meditation with cheeky playfulness, yet the tension of the first movement is never far away and contributes an ongoing sense of uneasiness. The last variation integrates the theme with the violence of the first movement, reaching an inevitable climax. The symphony ends with a touching restatement of the initial oboe theme, eventually dispelled by an eerie chord on the strings."

[LMNO]

I know you didn't much care for JS Bach, but have you really listened to the Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor?  Apart from the opening riff, which is ubiquitous, not to many people have really heard it once it gets going.

[Dildo Argentino]

I like the idea of opera, but it doesn't work out so well in practice. It's just that they keep belting out their wobbley tones (...)

I asked an opera singer about those wobbly tones recently (because I don't see the point, either) - the explanation she offered is that the smooth, legato tone referred to as bel canto is pretty much a given: a singer has it or he/she doesn't. The other type of singing (the wobbley tones) can be developed a great deal by training.

I don't know how accurate that explanation is, but I liked it.

So they do it because they have to learn how? What? Why? Just because it's hard? You're not supposed to make music because it is hard to do, you're supposed to do it because it sounds good.

No, I think what she meant was, more people want to be opera singers (and possibly there is a higher demand for opera singers) than are born with a great voice and need little training. So they invented this other type of singing (vibrato, thanks, Twid), which people with not so great voices can also train up with a hope of becoming quite good. Then I read into it and there is also the story that it was simply a fashion thing. Come to think of it, there's that conductor John Gardiner who has attempted to put on Mozart opera the way it was in Mozart's time. I love those: racier, livelier performances with much less wobbly voice.

[Dildo Argentino]

To be fair, very often music that sounds good is also very hard to perform. The world can handle only so many Nirvana albums, after all. But it is kind of ridiculous to say music is good just because it is hard to perform or arduous to learn. Anyone who believes that is both unimaginative and a closet masochist, and would benefit humanity more pretending to lose basketball games in North Korea.

Okay, first off, what's wrong with closet masochism?

Second, you are of course perfectly right. But you know how any profession likes to elevate itself by making itself harder than it really needs to be? The musician's trade is very much a case in point.

[Dildo Argentino]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Also, not to be that guy but I think that "classical" is being used loosely here. Also, by wobbley vocals in opera, am I to take that as vibrato? (I also hate gratuitous vibrato in vocals. It's a spice, not a main ingredient).

That said, you said Mozart was ok. I suppose you have to narrow down what you want to hear. What about Mozart just makes him just ok or Beethoven only can take so much? Pleasing to the ear is relative. What is pleasing to your ear?

I have trouble listening to Mozart myself, since his stuff sounds, generally, not heavy enough. Beethoven sounds heavier.

What I don't like about Mozart is, as you said, it's very "light." It's the musical embodiment of the word "dainty." It's pretty, but it has no gravitas. Beyond that, Mozart's harmonies are too predictable and there's no awesome counterpoint going on.

Beethoven is heavier, more substantive. But his music relies a little too much on scales and arpeggios to bridge between ideas - which makes it listenable but after a while it gets sort of monotonous. Also Beethoven's arrangements are predictable (intro/buildup -> hook -> noodling -> repeat twice -> hook 2 -> noodling -> next movement).

To put concisely what I'm looking for I guess it would be a classical music Frankenstein stitched together from the melodic and harmonic ability of Beethoven, the dynamic range of Brahms, and the get-to-the-fucking-hook-alreadyness of Metallica.

I think if you check out Gardiner's version of Mozart, you may notice that in his context, he was a bit of a punk rather than dainty. He was tamed later, for later audiences. (Bit like punk.)

[Nephew Twiddleton]

To be fair, very often music that sounds good is also very hard to perform. The world can handle only so many Nirvana albums, after all. But it is kind of ridiculous to say music is good just because it is hard to perform or arduous to learn. Anyone who believes that is both unimaginative and a closet masochist, and would benefit humanity more pretending to lose basketball games in North Korea.

Okay, first off, what's wrong with closet masochism?

Second, you are of course perfectly right. But you know how any profession likes to elevate itself by making itself harder than it really needs to be? The musician's trade is very much a case in point.

Did you really just make that point?

[Dildo Argentino]

To be fair, very often music that sounds good is also very hard to perform. The world can handle only so many Nirvana albums, after all. But it is kind of ridiculous to say music is good just because it is hard to perform or arduous to learn. Anyone who believes that is both unimaginative and a closet masochist, and would benefit humanity more pretending to lose basketball games in North Korea.

Okay, first off, what's wrong with closet masochism?

Second, you are of course perfectly right. But you know how any profession likes to elevate itself by making itself harder than it really needs to be? The musician's trade is very much a case in point.

Did you really just make that point?

Of course I did. Why the surprise? I guess you think it is inconcistent with my previous posts? Or is it some other reason?

[East Coast Hustle]

Y'know, we're all overlooking something important, which is that no matter who the best classical composer is, the only classical performers worth a shit are the goddamned TSO. Because fuck Mozart and anyone else who didn't have Alex Skolnick on guitar.

[LMNO]

Y'know, we're all overlooking something important, which is that no matter who the best classical composer is, the only classical performers worth a shit are the goddamned TSO. Because fuck Mozart and anyone else who didn't have Alex Skolnick on guitar.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Mozart was actually kinda punk.

[East Coast Hustle]

Y'know, we're all overlooking something important, which is that no matter who the best classical composer is, the only classical performers worth a shit are the goddamned TSO. Because fuck Mozart and anyone else who didn't have Alex Skolnick on guitar.

It would be an easy assumption to make, but you have to understand how I REALLY feel about "classical" "music".

[LMNO]

I do believe you've made yourself more than clear enough with that post.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Y'know, we're all overlooking something important, which is that no matter who the best classical composer is, the only classical performers worth a shit are the goddamned TSO. Because fuck Mozart and anyone else who didn't have Alex Skolnick on guitar.

The Tucson Symphony Orchestra consists of 3 mental defectives playing jugs & washboards, and a meth head using the buttharp.