I would just like to say...

..that I feel really sorry for classical musicians who seem to hate all kinds of music except for about 100ish years between 1789 and 1912. I have a friend who plans on playing the trumpet professionally (in orchestras) who thinks DEBUSSY is too much, too "weird". Debussy!! If it isn't Beethoven or Strauss or Bach etc she doesn't like it and is pretty snide when it even comes to a lot of "conservative" modern music. She hates jazz. She even threw a fit when I was trying to explain how I don't think Beethoven's even numbered symphonies weigh up to the odd numbered ones at all (except for No. 6, a favorite). She acted as if questioning the merit of any of Beethoven's work was violating some kind of Cardinal oath.

It's very frustrating, I couldn't imagine not listening to, well, every kind of music imaginable. Who has time to hate music? When are we as classical musicians going to drop the pretense and just relax and enjoy sounds. You know, I may listen to The Producers one minute, then some Brahms, then maybe A Tribe Called Quest. I haven't died yet. I have contracted some sort of fatal illness. I haven't coughed up one of my vital organs. It's okay to open your mind a bit, a promise you! I know I may be preaching to the choir a little bit on this board (even though I've even experience some of it here).

I think the one thing we as a society need to get over is this rather blatantly egotistical mantra of, "If I don't like something then it sucks". Let me tell you something, I can't stand the sound of country music, but you will never hear me bash it. What's the point? Country music has a very large fan base and has touched people for years, who am I to try and take that away from them. I can see the obvious merit in it, and I'm not about to question anyone's "talent" or the emotional effect of the music. Of course some of it is of questionable quality, but what music doesn't.

The mind set of musicians like the friend I described in the first couple of paragraphs unfortunately is not an isolated incident. I come across too many musicians with their heads up their donkey. As an aspiring composer coming up through the American higher-learning system, the most important thing to me as I begin to write more and more, and get one step closer to entering the professional world is this..."How am I going to stay relevant as a composer/conductor/whatever in 21st century America". Because to be honest folks, I'm not interested in just waxing pretentious, because all that does is get you a dead end job at a no name university teaching Music Theory and running a "new music ensemble", and the cycle of pretentious academia continues. A lot of composers have learned from this. They work in different medias, whether it be concert hall, film or television, or theatre. Something tells me that our society is much more familiar with the music of John Williams or the music from the broadway production Wicked than Brahms, Mahler, or Ligeti.

I'm going to end this here before I start crossing into a world that is bigger than I, but I just wanted to express the concern about my trumpet player friend and the many classical musicians I've come across like that. Of course, jazz musicians are at fault too, but they are no where near as closed minded.

As a side note: I've always found it funny how the extremes of classical music seem to almost be at war. You have the "experimentalists" who think a concerto for cellphone and orchestra is a good idea, then you have the people like my friend who think music died with Brahms (who as history can now show us, was quite an arrogant donkey, go figure?). Almost like our own little musical Democrats and Republicans, and in the middle we have the independents. People that embrace BOTH sides and don't belabor themselves with vitrol towards certain sounds. The composers who embrace this mentality nowadays are not surprisingly the most successful ones (ie: Corigliano)

I would take it this is a response to the "I hate Pop music" Thread?

I feel the same way. It's all the same- music. Some just sounds different than others...

But what am I saying?? I'm going to repeat your entire speach. And for those of who that doubt my feelings, I only posted the way I did in the "Pop music" thread just to challenge the thread starter with these ideals, and see if he could see where I was going.

*agrees completly with the first two posts*

Logically, pieces that are atonal, or end with dissonance, are unnatural.

That said, pop music (hate that term) shouldn't be compared with Classical Music (hate that as well....) nor Jazz.

The two reasons I despise contemporary pop, is the nonsensical simplicity, ignorance, and inpatients it implies (Note: not is. The other reason is the governance corporations have upon what it is.

The funny thing is- Some people must like it if it is becoming a rising style to write in...?

Logically, pieces that are atonal, or end with dissonance, are unnatural.

ah, but logic and nature have nothing to do with "music"

I have no time for people with closed ears or minds... They are useless to me, and will fail miserably at any attempted musical endeavor. Maybe I'll let them mow my lawn.

it's OK to preferences in music, as long as you understand that those preferences are nothing but a reflection of your own personal relationship with music.

I don't generally care for jazz, it's not a style that appeals much to me. But I don't have anything against it, nor have any negative feelings for it.

There are some jazz pieces that I REALLY love.

But I have so much music to listen to, at a certain point, I just can't listen to EVERYthing.

Yes, the whole "I hate" school of music criticism is sad.

Except for rap.. I hate rap.

:P

ah, but logic and nature have nothing to do with "music"

They have everything to do with music. Meter is a mothers heartbeat, tonality is physics. Atonality, is not physics. Dissonances, through physics requires a resolution, that, is natural.

I never said that I care not for atonal music (while I am dislike Schoenberg, I do like Pendereki)

Except for rap.. I hate rap.

Can't stand it either, but I do appreciate the way the keep the "music" moving forward by singing behind the beat. The poetry, although I don't like the words chosen, nor the topics, they can still be sometimes well fitted.

They have everything to do with music. Meter is a mothers heartbeat, tonality is physics. Atonality, is not physics. Dissonances, through physics requires a resolution, that, is natural.

Actually, no mother's heartbeat would go at the speed of some "tonal" music, so that's just a silly, feel-good, new-agey comment to make. It's balony.

And as for physics, well, that's also debatable. I don't think you'll get too many tonal composers admitting to using physics to define the course of their harmony.

But if it makes you feel better to believe these things, then go to it! Have fun.

Actually, no mother's heartbeat would go at the speed of some "tonal" music, so that's just a silly, feel-good, new-agey comment to make. It's balony.

That whole comparison is "balony". Since when did a nursery rhyme go at 280bpm? So because some pieces are fast, that PROVES there is absolutely no connection between fast music and slow music?

And as for physics, well, that's also debatable. I don't think you'll get too many tonal composers admitting to using physics to define the course of their harmony.

Who cares what the believe when they are writing it. The overtones of ANY note, provide the dominant 7 chord which wants to resolve. The minor triad is "sad" because the minor third clashes with the major third in the overtones. Harmony is defined by the harmonics of every note. These harmonics are natural. V goes to I because of that. Everything is based on the harmonics. Get rid of tonality (and the whole of tonality is within one note), and you get rid of the form of nature. Whether composers new this or not, it doesn't matter they are using it.

But if it makes you feel better to believe these things, then go to it! Have fun.

I like knowing why things happen, and how. People who are ignorant of why and how just know what. What means nothing and is nothing. I don't like how people spiritulize music. Heck, even the (subtle) "emotions" in music is trained, and can be learned through studying. People who spiritulize music are merely lazy and couldn't be bothered actually thinking about why they like what they here. Everything is 2 dimensional to them, well... there is a third dimension in the real world.

Since when did a nursery rhyme go at 280bpm? So because some pieces are fast, that PROVES there is absolutely no connection between fast music and slow music?

What?

:huh: Explain, please.

You have the "experimentalists" who think a concerto for cellphone and orchestra is a good idea...

I so considered this once...not even joking. :P

But I totally agree with what you say. I think it's a part of human nature to take sides on any issue. Cooperation, in my opinion, is not in our makeup. Stretching our boundaries beyond our comfort level and borrowing from all sources isn't either. But those 100 years were an exciting time for music in terms of development and should be embraced. I don't really like Brahms, but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

That whole comparison is "balony". Since when did a nursery rhyme go at 280bpm? So because some pieces are fast, that PROVES there is absolutely no connection between fast music and slow music?

that's NOT what I said.

I said there is no connection between a mother's heart beat and music.

A heart beat doesn't vary the way musical rythme does.

While you're at it, why don't you just say that rythme is like the passing of the days?

Or like the revolution of the atoms?

Or the planets?

I'm sorry, I just don't ascribe to the pseudo-poetic justifications for music's existance, or those for the debate between tonality and non-tonality.

What?

Explain, please.

__________________

It was a rhetorical question as a response. Nursery rhymes are for children, and are rarely fast.

It was suggested that because tonal pieces are fast it proves that meter didn't come from a mothers heartbeat. I'm asking if he really thinks there is no connection between fast music and slow music. If there is a connection you can merely trace it from slow to fast. His argument was fallacious.

I don't like how people spiritulize music. Heck, even the (subtle) "emotions" in music is trained, and can be learned through studying. People who spiritulize music are merely lazy and couldn't be bothered actually thinking about why they like what they here. Everything is 2 dimensional to them, well... there is a third dimension in the real world.

There is a third dimension...but I'd think it was the spiritual dimension, not the physical or scientific one. I believe that things happen in our lives -- including the musical experience -- that can't necessarily be explained by science. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of science (PBS can attest to that fact :P), but not everything is solvable through empirical research, IMO.

It was a rhetorical question as a response. Nursery rhymes are for children, and are rarely fast.

It was suggested that because tonal pieces are fast it proves that meter didn't come from a mothers heartbeat. I'm asking if he really thinks there is no connection between fast music and slow music. If there is a connection you can merely trace it from slow to fast. His argument was fallacious.

What the hell does a mother's heartbeat have to do with music. The only parallel that I can see, is our natural penchant for 'pulse', period - tempo, speed and meter have nothing to do with it.

There is a third dimension...but I'd think it was the spiritual dimension, not the physical or scientific one. I believe that things happen in our lives -- including the musical experience -- that can't necessarily be explained by science. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of science (PBS can attest to that fact :P), but not everything is solvable through empirical research, IMO.

good point

What the hell does a mother's heartbeat have to do with music. The only parallel that I can see, is our natural penchant for 'pulse', period - tempo, speed and meter have nothing to do with it.

I think, in terms of natural comfort, we relate more to pieces that are around the same tempo as our mother's heartbeat. Don't quote me on that though. :whistling:

A heart beat doesn't vary the way musical rythme does.

Who mentioned anything about rhyme? I was talking about meter... Although rhythm come (by extensions) from meter, was was not referring to it.

I'm sorry, I just don't ascribe to the pseudo-poetic justifications for music's existance, or those for the debate between tonality and non-tonality.

You regard physics as poetry? That certainly is very odd.

Try re-reading and think in more depth maybe. Non of these are "poetic" in nay shape or form.

While you're at it, why don't you just say that rythme is like the passing of the days?

Or like the revolution of the atoms?

Or the planets?

What on earth are you talking about?

There is a third dimension...but I'd think it was the spiritual dimension, not the physical or scientific one. I believe that things happen in our lives -- including the musical experience -- that can't necessarily be explained by science. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of science (PBS can attest to that fact ), but not everything is solvable through empirical research, IMO.

Please point out something that cannon be explained through the sciences?

What the hell does a mother's heartbeat have to do with music. The only parallel that I can see, is our natural penchant for 'pulse', period - tempo, speed and meter have nothing to do with it.

Think outside the (musical) box. tempo, speed and meter are also extensions of pulse.

Hell, how was speed in music originally measured?

why do you like music arcticwind7?

why do you like music arcticwind7?

Music is pointless. But I love it. Physics makes it appealing to us. Should I ignore it just because it is based in science? Life has no point either, but I love life... should I kill myself? Love is only a relation to lust and there for children, should I therefore hate?

Please point out something that cannon be explained through the sciences?

...Crop circles?

Clich

Music is pointless. But I love it. Physics makes it appealing to us. Should I ignore it just because it is based in science? Life has no point either, but I love life... should I kill myself? Love is only a relation to lust and there for children, should I therefore hate?

Interesting when you think about it doesnt everything seem pointless?

Clich