[Darth objectionable]

Maybe 'art music' leaves you feeling this way, but that is a very single minded viewpoint. You aren't considering the way that other people feel about the types of music that you don't like. You cannot say that because a certain type of music gives you this feeling, it gives everyone this feeling, and therefore this music is true 'art music'.

[Yoni]

You're right... it is a single-minded viewpoint. What are everyone else's views then?

[Darth objectionable]

Well I feel that more modern music that isn't as complex as 'art music' can also be seen as classical music, simply because it matches the crieria that I set out earlier.

[arcis]

"The Beatles wrote some really good tunes, and transformed modern popular music, but I would not say that their music has enough 'depth' to be classical."

Ok, then the early works of Mozart also don't belong to classical music. Or if you think on the music mass production of Mr. Telemann. Do you think his output has enough depth to be called classical? What is the definition of "depth".

[Gustav Fluffy]

Maybe 'art music' leaves you feeling this way, but that is a very single minded viewpoint. You aren't considering the way that other people feel about the types of music that you don't like. You cannot say that because a certain type of music gives you this feeling, it gives everyone this feeling, and therefore this music is true 'art music'.

It may not give everyone that feeling (are we talking hairs on the back of the neck here?), but I do not think that pop music effects anyone with the sort of deep emotional pull that composers like Mahler achieved. I believe that what makes music by many of these composers so great is their own emotional instability which comes across in notes. Take Schuman for example - even in his early works well before he went truly mad, you can hear a man on the very edge of sanity.

Ok, then the early works of Mozart also don't belong to classical music. Or if you think on the music mass production of Mr. Telemann.

Mozart was a genius whose music always reflects his deep inner struggle - that he never discovered an identity. As for Telemann... well... the less said the better... I for one am no great fan of his and believe that he should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

[Al Khabir]

I felt compelled to strike out from teh island of sanity that is the Platonism forum in order to help Darth Objectionable, because this forum is overrun by classical music lovers!

I would first of all like to know why classical music is unpopular compared to other music, despite the fact that it is more complicated musically. I would say that it is because it dose not have mass appeal. This is partly a cultural thing, and also the plain fact that in general people like to sing along to music and get involved.

Yoni, remember that the people in the past who appreciated classical music were the small percentage of the population who could afford to. As I have pointed out elsewhere, humanity has not progressed culturally for about 150 years. The majority never would have listened t classical music even then.

Also, Mozart, Handel, Bach and Ringo had the disadvantage that they did not have Jimi Hendrix to play the Guitar in their compositions.

[Vander]

Also, Mozart, Handel, Bach and Ringo had the disadvantage that they did not have Jimi Hendrix to play the Guitar in their compositions.

Now that is one of the most valid points here, and I mean it.

Viva la Jimi Hendrix!

For me, classical music is a once in a while exercise. Most of the time I am listening to Boston, Journey, and Led Zeppelin, or more current performers like Three Doors Down and Linkin Park.

[Darth objectionable]

Thank you Al Khabir for making a very valid point. I am in 100% agreement with you on this. Also, may I say that you have exceptional music taste.

[Gustav Fluffy]

I would first of all like to know why classical music is unpopular compared to other music, despite the fact that it is more complicated musically.

This is not because people are unable to understand it, but because they are uneducated about how to.

This is partly a cultural thing, and also the plain fact that in general people like to sing along to music and get involved.

But classical music does involve. Listen to a Mahler symphony, and you will come out of the concert as if from a dream, emerging from the great world that he created in his music. People just have no patience, and yes, I agree, it is our culture at fault for that.

Also, Mozart, Handel, Bach and Ringo had the disadvantage that they did not have Jimi Hendrix to play the Guitar in their compositions.

You may admire Hendrix, but I am afraid to say that he is simply inadequate as a musician, when put up against some of the great classical and jazz performers. He is a cultural icon, whose skill lies, like all popular musicians, in his showmanship.

[Darth objectionable]

Again, you deliver a biased opinion. This type of music doesn't give me the same pleasure as you. You say that it involves you, but I cannot enjoy it because it is not my tastes. You must accept that it will not leave everyone feeling as it leaves you. [/list]

[Gustav Fluffy]

Again, you deliver a biased opinion. This type of music doesn't give me the same pleasure as you. You say that it involves you, but I cannot enjoy it because it is not my tastes. You must accept that it will not leave everyone feeling as it leaves you.

It does not give you that pleasure because you have not been educated inhow to accept that pleasure. All opinions are biased, and yours is equally so. I am simply making mine with the weight of a musical education behind me. (sorry to be a snob)

[Yeddi]

Well doesn't that meant that the music isn't that powerful?
i mean if you must have an education in order to understand it and get the meaning. then its not really a reflection of raw human emotion in music. Its no better than a written piece. You have to learn to read before you can get the emotion. but if you look at a picture you can get that emotion right there with no needed education.

[Darth objectionable]

I don't think that you have to be educated to enjoy music (look back to one of my early posts on page two). This post is a bit contradictory, but it proves that you don't have to be educated to enjoy the music. Also, it proves that my view is slightly balanced.

[Darth objectionable]

Thank you Yeddi for that little ray of sunshine reply. It is a very good point that I agree whole heartedly.

[Gustav Fluffy]

Well doesn't that meant that the music isn't that powerful?
i mean if you must have an education in order to understand it and get the meaning. then its not really a reflection of raw human emotion in music. Its no better than a written piece. You have to learn to read before you can get the emotion. but if you look at a picture you can get that emotion right there with no needed education.

Are you suggesting that visual art is the greatest form of art? I think that music’s inaccessibility makes it greater. If one must have to be learned in order to understand it, then surely the level of expression can be deeper and stronger. I am afraid that on these grounds, your argument contradicts itself Yeddi.

[Yeddi]

No i am not, i personally feel more when i listen to music than i do with visual art. though it depends on the piece.
I guess i was fairly unclear with my last post but what i meant was more along the lines of:
"Well doesn't that meant that your music isn't that powerful? "

You are suggesting that it is this "classical music" that needs education. it could be but i can listen quite comfortable, with no musical knowledge, to Sigur Ros, Radiohead and many other bands and music, and i can feel the emotion there.
i listen to Mozart, it doesn't have nearly the same effect on me, yet you claim there is more emotion in it, whats the use if most people don't understand it? it doesn't make it better, in fact that would make it worse in my opinion, true art should be universal. Not something that comes with a degree.

[/quote]

[Darth objectionable]

I agree. True art should be accessible. Music from artists like the Rolling Stones is easily accessible which is what makes it art.

[Al Khabir]

The point about art not being adequate if requires education is quite true... art should inspire human emotion, not intellectual emotion. That is what the novel and philosophy is for.

When you listen to classical music, have you ever heard the feeling of pain and greif? You can really get that with the guitar, but not with a violin.

[Gustav Fluffy]

The point about art not being adequate if requires education is quite true... art should inspire human emotion, not intellectual emotion. That is what the novel and philosophy is for.

I was under the impression that the novel is a form of art? In answer to your point, classical music inspires human emotion through the application of intellectual emotion, and by combining the two, the whole becomes greater. In other words, you have to concentrate and listen hard to appreciate it.

I feel that I must explain to you how Classical music (generally) expresses emotion. Composers use climaxes in their music, forcing the listener to wait for minutes before finally giving the audience the moment they have been waiting for. Take Wagner - his climaxes are almost orgasmic (the American composer Virgil Thomas once said that he could hear the protagonists of the opera Tristan und Isolde 'ejaculation simultaneously seven times') and if you have never experienced 'that feeling' then you have never experienced the real power of music. Popular music on the other hand does not generally build up like this, instead slamming away repeatedly at a few chords, until their effect wears thin.

When you listen to classical music, have you ever heard the feeling of pain and greif?

Err... yes. I wouldn't listen to it otherwise. Ever heard of Mahler - now there's real grief.

You can really get that with the guitar, but not with a violin.

I'm sorry, but you are quite obviously talking out of your arse. Have you ever heard a real violinist playing a real violin concerto? Have you ever heard a string quartet? Have you ever heard the full force of a symphony orchestra live?

The violin produces one of the most pure sounds of any instrument bar the human voice, and you say it cannot express emotion. BS. Complete utter BS. Why do you think that the great composers wrote for the violin more than the guitar - oh, or do you mean the 'electric guitar'. It is an instrument so feeble that it cannot even play unamplified.

The guitar is about image, not sound.

[Proctor]

I'll say it again. Who the fuck are these 'masses' you are so fond of talking about? The 'uneducated' ones?

Fuck, man. I've never seen such an openly degenerative view on things. The average Joe Bloggs doesn't 'understand' Classical music. Bullshit.

It's music. There's nothing to understand. You listen to it because it sounds good. Same reason you might listen to modern music. So what if it has 'bop' value? Is that a bad thing? You can't use the fact that you have different tastes in music to elevate yourself above everyone else.

If you want to analyse music bar by bar, go for it. I don't need to. I'm not going to. In fact, if music needs analysis to be proven to be good, it wasn't that good in the first place.