So, in my old age, I have discovered that classical music doesn't suck. But I have a problem. Most of it does suck. Especially every single scrap of malauditory shit written by pretentious assholes who wish they were good enough to die at Mozart's feet in the past 150 years.
The purpose of this thread is to see if any of you irreverent bums know of any DECENT classical music that I should listen to, because I'm really lazy and the Google machine hasn't been very helpful. Everyone who says something is good is wrong. Beethoven is excellent, but wears thin after a while. Mozart is alright. I am liking Brahms so far. But surely there are less prominent composers who are as good as or even better than these overblown baroque-era Miley Cyruses. Who are they?
Now, I'll be frank. I am not looking for "edgy" or "innovative" classical composers. Invariably, in the context of the symphony, those two adjectives are euphemisms for "likes to use a lot of that god-awful dissonance shit" and "lacks the decency to present an audible rhythm." I do not want to wade through unfathomable seas of notes and instruments that disagree with each other, or try to wrap my aged and shuttered mind around "ambient" pieces that sound like someone delicately vomiting at the other end of a very long rubber tube. I want clear melody, harmony, and rhythm in the traditional sense: pleasing to the ear, but also complex and able to bear multiple extended listens. I am not looking for the kind of shit that BBC marches out every year at the Proms, which is only pleasing to self-satisfied schmucks in tuxedos who probably go to the symphony so they can go home to bitch about it over expensive wine that they are also bitching about. I would prefer only music written prior to 1860, because apparently after that year everyone in the classical scene got completely fucktarded and started "innovating" by deleting everything in their compositions that could be defined as "music." There may be newer compositions done in the Baroque or Classical styles, but I have not heard of them. That's what you are for !
The real problem I'm trying to solve with this music is that I live in Phoenix, which has less culture than cheese manufactured in the vacuum of outer space. I need to feel like there is a point to humanity, that we can paint mind-altering soundscapes, but in a format that is tied to history. Anyway, do you have any ideas?
How much Bach have you heard?
And although it falls slightly outside of your timeframe, you might want to check out Verdi's Requiem.
I can only assume you've dismissed Wagner?
Pergolesi, Stabat Mater
Chopin, Waltzes
And although Erik Satie does fall in the last 150 years, the few pieces of music he left behind are very good.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 06:29:30 PM
I can only assume you've dismissed Wagner?
I have tried Wagner, and his stuff isn't bad, though I haven't gone that deeply into it. I'm looking for more obscure composers really, just because most of the best music by the "greats" is already played out.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 06:18:33 PM
How much Bach have you heard?
And although it falls slightly outside of your timeframe, you might want to check out Verdi's Requiem.
Bach (JS) is good, but not really my cup of tea. Something about his music is too simple. Same problem I have with Mozart, to be honest. JC Bach is a little better, but I'm aiming for later eras - more Classical and Romantic than Baroque - because those are the years where the symphony format took off and ridiculously awesome 45-50 minute pieces for entire orchestras were a focus. Earlier music isn't BAD, it's just not given enough time to develop or explore itself, and often isn't written on the scale of an entire orchestra. I will check out Verdi (actually checking it now...), thanks!
Quote from: holist on January 07, 2014, 06:38:31 PM
Pergolesi, Stabat Mater
Chopin, Waltzes
And although Erik Satie does fall in the last 150 years, the few pieces of music he left behind are very good.
More items for the to-try list.
ETA: my time frame was off. Almost anything written after 1900 is awful, not 1860.
Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and Stravinsky are my recommendations.
Speaking of Tchaikovsky, you might want to try out the Russians: Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, et al.
Have you considered or tried any opera?
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 07, 2014, 07:24:04 PM
Have you considered or tried any opera?
Opera would be good if it wasn't for all that singing.
Quote from: V3X on January 07, 2014, 07:34:49 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 07, 2014, 07:24:04 PM
Have you considered or tried any opera?
Opera would be good if it wasn't for all that singing.
That thwarts any recommendation I could make.
I'll fuck away off with my monocle.
Opera is to me nothing more than overdramatic soap operas with really really crap storylines :lol:
I'm a Stravinsky fan, (even though I'm supposed to hate classical music so let's not mention this again)
I especially love Stravinskys firebird, and how better to play it than when he is conducting it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geXJ5Oiq60
Also the rite of spring is great - they say it caused a riot when it was first performed:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/music/riteofspring.html
QuoteThe Rite of Spring (Le Sacré du Printemps,) with music by Igor Stravinsky and choreography by Vaslav Nijinsky. The intensely rhythmic score and primitive scenario -- a setting of scenes from pagan Russia -- shock audiences more accustomed to the demure conventions of classical ballet. The complex music and violent dance steps depicting fertility rites first draw catcalls and whistles from the crowd, and are soon followed by shouts and fistfights in the aisles. The unrest in the audience escalates into a riot.
Quote from: GrannySmith on January 07, 2014, 10:55:54 PM
Opera is to me nothing more than overdramatic soap operas with really really crap storylines :lol:
That's the point of Opera.
"Over there! Fucking off, Fucking off Over There!"
"Over There! He's Fucking off, Fucking Off over THERE"
"Over Here! I've fucked, I've Fucked off Over Here!"
"With Us! Ran away and Fucked off with US"
Wonderful when you're fucked up but can stilll keep up with the subtitles. Music's not too bad either.
Philistines.
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 in front of an orchestra that could tell the story just as well by itself, thank you very much. It's like listening to two TV shows at the same time, it's impossible to enjoy either one because the other one keeps butting in on all the good parts. Also how can I get lost inside an epic soundscape and imagine some great big adventure featuring giant Martian robolizards devouring entire domed cities full of Ayn Rand clones when there are people literally screaming at me and demanding that I imagine some boring story about Renaissance-era yuppies instead?
With an attitude like this, you'll never be welcome in high society sir.
More seriously, I spent far too many years with at least 2/3 separate sources of noise constantly going so that may have given me a bit of an edge.
I'm sure you'll be able to get versions with no vocals, so maybe throw a couple into your search terms and see what you find.
I do think they should make entire hour-long operas for karaoke night.
I would be quite surprised if Japan has not already done this.
I've found Pandora to be very helpful for discovering new music to listen to. Maybe this would be a good resource for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAo_fTiZ2hY
I know you said you weren't really into baroque, but this piece (and to be honest, up to now only this performance of it) just blew me away when I first heard it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LwWRe4rv04
I'm on vacation and can't be arsed to read this whole thread to see if anyone's already mentioned it but seriously, Rachmaninov (sp?) or GTFO.
Cain called out RAWKmoninov on the previous page, but it's always good to reiterate.
Quote from: V3X on January 07, 2014, 11:11:38 PM
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.
Quote from: holist on January 08, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: V3X on January 07, 2014, 11:11:38 PM
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.
Quote from: V3X on January 08, 2014, 09:54:24 PM
Quote from: holist on January 08, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: V3X on January 07, 2014, 11:11:38 PM
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.
this!
Quote from: V3X on January 08, 2014, 09:54:24 PM
Quote from: holist on January 08, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: V3X on January 07, 2014, 11:11:38 PM
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.
Tell that to Joe Satriani.
Or any of the guys in Dream Theater.
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.
Quote from: Waffleman on January 09, 2014, 12:12:25 AM
Or any of the guys in Dream Theater.
Remember when the drummer left to join a Rock N Roll band? The fanbois came out of the wood-works for that butt hurt.
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.
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on January 09, 2014, 02:24:31 AM
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.
Quote from: V3X on January 09, 2014, 03:12:12 AM
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on January 09, 2014, 02:24:31 AM
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?
What about Mussorgskiy?
Quote from: V3X on January 09, 2014, 03:12:12 AM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._2_(Prokofiev)) 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."
I know you didn't much care for JS Bach, but have you really listened to the Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zscqshch6N4)? Apart from the opening riff, which is ubiquitous, not to many people have really heard it once it gets going.
Quote from: V3X on January 08, 2014, 09:54:24 PM
Quote from: holist on January 08, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: V3X on January 07, 2014, 11:11:38 PM
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.
Quote from: V3X on January 09, 2014, 01:19:48 AM
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.
Quote from: V3X on January 09, 2014, 03:12:12 AM
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on January 09, 2014, 02:24:31 AM
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.)
Quote from: holist on January 10, 2014, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: V3X on January 09, 2014, 01:19:48 AM
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?
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on January 10, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
Quote from: holist on January 10, 2014, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: V3X on January 09, 2014, 01:19:48 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 10, 2014, 10:28:24 PM
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.
:troll:
Mozart was actually kinda punk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78HBp-Youk).
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 11, 2014, 04:51:45 AM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 10, 2014, 10:28:24 PM
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.
:troll:
It would be an easy assumption to make, but you have to understand how I REALLY feel about "classical" "music".
I do believe you've made yourself more than clear enough with that post.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 10, 2014, 10:28:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 10, 2014, 10:28:24 PM
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.
What is an Alex Skolnick?
Seriously though, I used to think that classical music was lame, but then I realized that it is actually NOT lame. It has all the best features of good metal (complex rhythms and harmonies, innovative melodies, layer upon layer of sonic bliss). It isn't the composers' fault that electric guitars and distortion hadn't been invented yet. They had to make due with trumpets and god damn tubas and shit. No wonder they all looked completely bonkers and they all died by the age of 40. I try to judge musical compositions by how awesome they would sound if they were transcribed into their true electrified metal form. This is also mostly why I hate HATE HATE contemporary "classical music." There's no excuse for writing that way now. We have distortion pedals and BC Rich. Anyone who still writes for cellos* and brass is worth forgetting immediately - and it shows in the atonal shite they come up with.
*Exception made for Apocalyptica, but only barely.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 13, 2014, 03:35:49 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 10, 2014, 10:28:24 PM
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.
I'd honestly listen to that.
[requia]
However, he's referring to the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, I believe, which attempts to translate classical music to rock guitar.
[/requia]
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 13, 2014, 03:35:49 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 10, 2014, 10:28:24 PM
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.
Sounds like it would probably be an improvement over Mozart.
Quote from: V3X on January 13, 2014, 03:44:08 PM
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 10, 2014, 10:28:24 PM
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.
What is an Alex Skolnick?
Seriously though, I used to think that classical music was lame, but then I realized that it is actually NOT lame. It has all the best features of good metal (complex rhythms and harmonies, innovative melodies, layer upon layer of sonic bliss). It isn't the composers' fault that electric guitars and distortion hadn't been invented yet. They had to make due with trumpets and god damn tubas and shit. No wonder they all looked completely bonkers and they all died by the age of 40. I try to judge musical compositions by how awesome they would sound if they were transcribed into their true electrified metal form. This is also mostly why I hate HATE HATE contemporary "classical music." There's no excuse for writing that way now. We have distortion pedals and BC Rich. Anyone who still writes for cellos* and brass is worth forgetting immediately - and it shows in the atonal shite they come up with.
*Exception made for Apocalyptica, but only barely.
Skolnick is one of the handful of guys legitimately in the "best guitarist alive" conversation. Among other things, he plays for Trans Siberian Orchestra on occasion.
Also, fuck Apocalyptica.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 13, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
Also, fuck Apocalyptica.
I'm not a big enough fan of Apocalyptica to offer much of a defense, but I find their music more palatable than anything else I've ever heard on the radio.
Beethoven would still kick their ass.
Also, TSO is 95% fluffy christmas music and 5% music that was rejected for not being fluffy-christmas enough.
Yes, but we're already talking about classical music so it can't be any worse even if christmas is involved. It's all shit, I'd just rather listen to that shit when it's being shoveled into my ears by a peerless guitarist.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on January 14, 2014, 05:51:59 PM
Yes, but we're already talking about classical music so it can't be any worse even if christmas is involved.
:crankey:
Is Karl Orff off limits? Because Although there is dissonance, much of it is aggressively minor keys, which Metal has in spades.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 14, 2014, 06:05:39 PM
Is Karl Orff off limits? Because Although there is dissonance, much of it is aggressively minor keys, which Metal has in spades.
oh! That music has a
name and a
composer!? Srsly, yes this is the good stuff.
Ah! Then you want more like Carmina Burana. I thought that might be slightly too modern for your tastes.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 14, 2014, 07:40:42 PM
Ah! Then you want more like Carmina Burana. I thought that might be slightly too modern for your tastes.
Well, there's no good reason why that guy didn't write that as a proper metal song to begin with, but in this case he can be forgiven.