Fun Stuff > BAND
Classical?
Robbo:
Thou Shalt Suffer made a great Neo-Classical album, further proof that Ihsahn is a god.
Neo-Classical, because Metalheads love Classical really and you're gonna have to live with it. And they wonder why no one seems to like classical anymore. Because they're all busy in pits.
rynne:
--- Quote from: Switchblade ---hey, I've had this great idea: combine the best of classical and heavy metal into one glorious whole:
THE ROCKQUIEM!!!
part requiem, part heavy metal, all cool.
--- End quote ---
Here you go. ;)
I always get kinda sketchy when modern composers like Reich, Glass or Pärt are called "classical." I mean, yeah, they have works composed for orchestras or choirs, but it's completely different music than Classical (which itself should be differentiated from Baroque or Romantic, etc.). Lumping everything written for orchestras and/or choirs as "classical" is like lumping Hank Williams, the Beatles, Megadeth, and the Pixies as "blues" because they all write for guitars, bass, drums, and vocals. It's a societal shorthand that irks me.
That rant being said, I generally like Dvorák and Wagner, as well as choral works by Handel. Modern composers like Glass and Reich are pretty nifty, too.
Switchblade:
Yeah, S&M is a bit different to what I have in mind - S&M was basically a Metallica concert with an orchestra in the background. I want to do an orchestral/choral piece that just happens to include electric guitars and a drum kit as part of the ensemble.
I also already own a copy of S&M.
--- Quote ---I always get kinda sketchy when modern composers like Reich, Glass or Pärt are called "classical." I mean, yeah, they have works composed for orchestras or choirs, but it's completely different music than Classical (which itself should be differentiated from Baroque or Romantic, etc.). Lumping everything written for orchestras and/or choirs as "classical" is like lumping Hank Williams, the Beatles, Megadeth, and the Pixies as "blues" because they all write for guitars, bass, drums, and vocals. It's a societal shorthand that irks me.
--- End quote ---
conversely, it irks me that so much of contemporary music is segregated according to a perceived genre. It's like saying that people can't write whatever the hell they like, and take the credit for coming up with their own unique music, no, they're lumped in with a load of other people who may have a very different style to themselves. Compare Reel Big Fish to Less Than Jake, Rancid to NOFX, Eminem to Jay-Z -they all belong to the same "genres", but they're all very different to each other.
is it fair to lump music together under various headings? hell no. Even when it's similar, its different, and people should get over the idea of labelling everything into various categories and just learn to think in terms of who wrote it, rather than "Oh! I like Ska, therefore, I'll like both of these bands equally!"
That's not how it works at all. It's all music. people should at least try to learn to like what they like and not constrain themselves to the limits of "genre". if they find that they genuinely only do like death metal, then that's cool, but refusing to move outside the limits of what you know just makes no kind of sense at all to me.
anyway... end of rant.
blindsuperhero:
Well, I know this discussion comes round about once every month on here, but anyway.
--- Quote ---is it fair to lump music together under various headings?
--- End quote ---
Yes. It's not fair to presume that if you like Ska band A, you will like Ska band B, but if both bands have music that shares similar charactaristics in rhythm, tempo, instrumentation it is fair to say both bands have music that shares those characteristics. Just like impressionist painting, or gothic architechture, or anything. When things share characteristics it is entirely fair to say they share characteristics.
rynne:
--- Quote from: Switchblade ---conversely, it irks me that so much of contemporary music is segregated according to a perceived genre. It's like saying that people can't write whatever the hell they like, and take the credit for coming up with their own unique music, no, they're lumped in with a load of other people who may have a very different style to themselves. Compare Reel Big Fish to Less Than Jake, Rancid to NOFX, Eminem to Jay-Z -they all belong to the same "genres", but they're all very different to each other.
--- End quote ---
In this case, the difference isn't a genre classification as much as cultural and chronological:
Medieval: < 1400
Renaissance: 1400-1600
Baroque: 1600-1760
Classical: 1760-1820
Romantic: 1820-1910
Modern: 1910-1975
Contemporary: ~1975-present
There is a definite Classical Period as defined by artistic and societal ideas, not just an arbitrary genre distinction. Mozart and Beethoven are Classical in the strict sense; but Bach is Baroque; and Brahms, Wagner and Tchaikovsky are Romantic.
It annoys me a tad that is there is a specific meaning to "Classical" as referring to a historical period--there's Classical art and Classical literature and Classical manners of thinking--but the meaning is lost to a more general feeling that anything that isn't in a modern form is "classic" (note the lowercase).
I know that "classical" is more generally used than Classical and I accept that, but it's worth noting the difference, I think.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version