Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Peter, the moderator

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Hi,

 

I think if asked to choose one genre, for me it wouldn't be either prog or

classical, but folk. Purity of emotion, simplicity of form, sense of

history...no other music can move me in the same way. And I wasn't saying

that classical music is 'better' than prog, just structually more complex.

And that isn't necessarily a good thing, or a bad thing, just, well, a

thing.

 

John

 

 

-

" Heartwork " <Heartwork

 

Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:37 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> Very true. When I described metal (and classical) as more complicated

than

> most other types of music I was not denigrating other music just trying to

> describe what, to me, links the two kinds. Unfortunately someone then

took

> the link I had made to make a comparison.

>

> I love the metal I listen to with a passion - it is passionate music, and

> for me, nothing else comes close. The classical music I like is good, but

I

> would dump it in a second if asked to make a choice between the two.

>

> Jo

>

>

> > What matters is: do you like the way it sounds, the blending of voice

and

> > instruments, does it move you?

> >

> > Danielle

> >

> >

> >

> > " You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette

> Rankin

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ----Original Message Follows----

> > " Heartwork " <Heartwork

> >

> >

> > Re: Peter, the moderator

> > Fri, 16 May 2003 18:49:46 +0100

> >

> > Colin (my husband) pointed out that symphonies are played by a lot more

> > instruments (i.e. 30 ish) than prog metal (4 or 5 per band) - so it

might

> > just sound more complicated.

> >

> > Jo

> >

> > > Are you seriously saying that you believe any prog rock track to be

as

> > > musically complex as a classical symphony? Because whilst prog rock

has

> > its

> > > merits, and undoubtedly more complex than most contemporary genres, I

> > rather

> > > doubt you'd find a single prog musician who'd seriously try and make

> such

> > a

> > > claim.

> > >

> > > John

> > > -

> > > " Peter " <Snowbow

> > >

> > > Thursday, May 15, 2003 8:11 PM

> > > Re: Peter, the moderator

> > >

> > >

> > > > Hi John

> > > >

> > > > > That said, though, in my opinion even the most complex prog rock

> > track

> > > > > doesn't come close in complexity to even a simple Baroque

concerto

> > or

> > > > > Classical symphony.

> > > >

> > > > I repeat what I said a few moments ago.... you obviously aren't a

> > > musician!

> > > >

> > > > BB

> > > > Peter

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ---

> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > > > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > To send an email to

> -

> > > >

> > > >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Peter,

 

> You have found one... me. But, look at just some prog rock musicians:

> And those are just the ones I know about!

 

These are classically-trained prog musicians. But these are not people

suggesting that prog is more complex in form than classical music.

 

> Now, how about listening to Metropolis Part I by Dream Theater, and if you

> can find a single Classical musician who could play the instumental

> mid-section I will be highly surprised. Find a classical pianist with the

> flair and basic ability of Jordan Rudess or Derek Sherinian and I'll be

> equally shocked.

 

You're missing my point again. I am talking form of music, not

virtuosity of the musicians. Prog is, in large part, more virtuosic than

much of classical music. It would be, as the genre is made up, in large

part, of classical musicians wanting a form in which to express their

virtuosity. But that doesn't equate to complexity of form. The two are

entirely different.

 

> Perhaps you could suggest a piece of classical music which compares in

> complexity to things such as Dream Theater, Shadow Gallery, Rhapsody,

Empty

> Tremor, Opeth.

 

I admit that I don't know Tremor or Opteth. But as for the others, well yes.

Anything by Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky, Richard Stauss,

Vaughan Williams, Schostakovich, etc... Anything by practically any

classical composer beyond the Baroque, really..

 

> On a slight aside, I have noticed amongst my classical-music associates

that

> there does tend to be a certain close-minded " arrogance " amongst those who

> like classical music, and more often than not they have never even heard

any

> prog metal at all. I think my favourite response when asked " how can you

> like that music " was " I tried listening to it *before* judging

 

I have heard, and enjoy, a lot of prog rock. I'm sitting next to a CD rack

containing about a dozen Yes albums, four or five Dream Theatre

albums...Genesis, Vai, Morse, etc. I do know about prog rock, although I am

not, compared with some, an expert. But, as I said in an earlier email, I

don't allow my love of a genre to cloud my mind to its limitations.

 

John

 

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

Friday, May 16, 2003 4:57 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> Hi John

>

> > Are you seriously saying that you believe any prog rock track to be as

> > musically complex as a classical symphony? Because whilst prog rock has

> its

> > merits, and undoubtedly more complex than most contemporary genres, I

> rather

> > doubt you'd find a single prog musician who'd seriously try and make

such

> a

> > claim.

>

> You have found one... me. But, look at just some prog rock musicians:

>

> James LaBrie: Trained Opera singer

> Damian Wilson: Trained Opera singer (4 years doing the lead in Les

> Miserables amongst other things)

> John Petrucci: 1st from Berkely

> John Myung: 1st from Berkely

> Kevin Moore: 1st from Berkely

> Mike Portnoy: 1st from Berkely

> Damond Jineva: A vocal range of over 5 octaves (that's 3 more than your

> average opera singer)

>

> And those are just the ones I know about!

>

> Now, how about listening to Metropolis Part I by Dream Theater, and if you

> can find a single Classical musician who could play the instumental

> mid-section I will be highly surprised. Find a classical pianist with the

> flair and basic ability of Jordan Rudess or Derek Sherinian and I'll be

> equally shocked.

>

> I play both classical guitar and prog metal - and I do a lot of singing in

> both genres, and I have yet to find a classical piece which compares in

> complexity with the vast majority of prog rock (although sometimes

> simplicity can be highly effective, and is also used in prog metal to good

> effect).

>

> Perhaps you could suggest a piece of classical music which compares in

> complexity to things such as Dream Theater, Shadow Gallery, Rhapsody,

Empty

> Tremor, Opeth.

>

> On a slight aside, I have noticed amongst my classical-music associates

that

> there does tend to be a certain close-minded " arrogance " amongst those who

> like classical music, and more often than not they have never even heard

any

> prog metal at all. I think my favourite response when asked " how can you

> like that music " was " I tried listening to it *before* judging it " .

>

> Anyway, went a bit away from what we were talking about but... to answer

> your point - I'd be very surprised if you found a prog metal musician who

> doesn't think that prog metal is more challenging and complex than

> classical - because if they didn't think it was, they'd be playing

classical

> music and earning more money doing so!

>

> BB

> Peter

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi,

 

> Aha - a classical music buff. That explains your attitude toward non

> classical music.

 

Please do try not to be so quick to leap to cliched assumptions. I am

trained classically, but

perform as a folk musician, and my favourite genres are country, folk and

traditional Aboriginal music. I like non-classical musical genres, I just

don't allow my love of them to cloud my judgement of their forms.

 

> Now, if you want to talk theory and " forms " and so on,

> then look no further than Dream Theater, who probably have a better

> understanding of these things than most classical musicians.

 

Nearly all the members of Dream Theater are, I believe, classically trained.

So they don't have a better understanding than classical musicians - they

are classical musicians. So if you read interviews with them, you'll hear

them talk with admiration about classical music and composers, of the

influence of classical composers on their work, especially, I believe, Bach

and Wagner. And, more importantly, you'll hear them 'admitting' that their

music is nowhere near as complex as most classical music. Although admit is

not really an accurate term, as it is not something they see as needed to be

admitted to, so much as just a statement of the obvious. Morse, Yes, Dream

Theater, Vai, Liquid Tension, Flower People...pick any prog rock group or

musician, and I'm willing to bet that if asked they'd say the same thing.

 

Now this is not, I hasten to add, to denigrate prog rock, or folk, or

country, or any other

form. I do not see classical music as a standard to which other forms need

to be compared. But rather each genre has its own merits, and classical

music, especially the Classical and Romantic periods, boasts a complexity of

form far beyond any other Western genre..

 

Now I could spend a while analysing, say, a Dream Theatre track and a

classical symphony. We could look at formal structure, harmonic variety,

development of themes, and so on. But to be honest, I didn't enjoy that kind

of thing much at university, and so have no real desire to do so again.

Which

could, I admit, be construed as a 'get out'. But I didn't really sign up to

this list to talk about music, and if you do want comparisons and analysis

of various forms of music, there are hundreds of books out there written by

better analysts than me, which you could read if you were interested.

 

John

 

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

Friday, May 16, 2003 5:01 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> Hi John

>

> > Um, well, actually, at the risk of blowing my own trumpet, so to speak,

> I'm

> > a classically-trained musican (degree, diplomas, blah blah blah), and

> > perform semi-professionally.

>

> Aha - a classical music buff. That explains your attitude toward non

> classical music.

>

> > And note that I didn't comment on Slayers'

> > technique or expertise, or on how difficult the music is to play, but on

> the

> > forms they use in their tracks. Which - and correct me if I'm wrong -

> aren't

> > that intricate.

>

> Not sure what you mean by " forms " - presumably you mean things like Handel

> (you remember him - the guy who wrote one piece of music and then

re-hashed

> it every time he was commissioned to write something new.) If you mean do

> they have an in depth understanding of music theory, the answer is

" probably

> not " - but since half

> the music written by sticking to the rules of theory is pretty dull and

> stagnant, so what? Now, if you want to talk theory and " forms " and so on,

> then look no further than Dream Theater, who probably have a better

> understanding of these things than most classical musicians.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi John

 

> Rather than number of instruments, you could try considering the number of

> distinct lines playing at once. An average prog track may have up to ten

or

> so, though usually no more than five or six. An average symphony will

> probably have at least fifteen or twenty. Now this is not 'proof' of

> complexity on its own, but is certainly one factor.

 

With only 13 distinct notes in an octave (i.e. 13 different notes which can

be played at once), and generally only 6 or 7 maximum different notes played

together sounding anything other than horrific.... why do you feel there is

an advantage of having 15 distinct lines over 10?

 

By the way, something which I think would help us all understand where you

are coming from - which progressive metal groups are you referring to?

 

BB

Peter

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi John

 

> I admit that I don't know Tremor or Opteth. But as for the others, well

yes.

> Anything by Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky, Richard Stauss,

> Vaughan Williams, Schostakovich, etc... Anything by practically any

> classical composer beyond the Baroque, really..

 

I have performed works of several of the above - sorry, they aren't as

complex or as intricate as any of the prog rock pieces I have performed.

 

Incidentally, could you explain what you mean by " form " - this seems to be

some sort of term that you've started using a lot because you've hooked onto

the fact that I don't know what it means. From the way you've used it so

far, my current guess is that it is a term used by those who know a lot

about music theory to baffle us mere mortals.

 

> I have heard, and enjoy, a lot of prog rock. I'm sitting next to a CD rack

> containing about a dozen Yes albums, four or five Dream Theatre

> albums...

 

Shame you couldn't copy their name correctly off one of the CDs then :-)

 

> Genesis, Vai, Morse, etc. I do know about prog rock, although I am

> not, compared with some, an expert. But, as I said in an earlier email, I

> don't allow my love of a genre to cloud my mind to its limitations.

 

How much of it have you played for yourself? How many prog metal pieces have

you arranged for use by a different selection of instruments?

 

Perhaps a practical perspective would be more helpful. One of my " hobbies "

is arranging and performing music in styles other than that in which it was

written - as such, I have arranged numerous classical pieces for performance

in a heavy rock style, and numerous progressive metal songs (and other

metal, but that's a different kettle of fish) for performance by orchestra

and choir. I can tell you, classical into rock is a piece of cake - prog

metal to classical is far harder to catch all the underlying subtlety of the

piece.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

John

 

I am no musician, but surely these distinct lines are like harmonies or

parts of a melody. You wouldn't want 15 to 20 separate tunes going on in on

piece of music. I am not a fan of orchestral classical music, but can not

think of any that I am aware of that have that much going on, without it

just contributing to the overall melody, or the basic rythm in some way.

When I watch a symphony orchestra playing, they seem, in large part, to take

it in turns to play their parts. The percussionist usually sits for many

minutes at a time doing nothing, and I feel in classical music is much

underused.

 

Maybe you could tell me which prog bands you like.

 

Jo

 

> Rather than number of instruments, you could try considering the number of

> distinct lines playing at once. An average prog track may have up to ten

or

> so, though usually no more than five or six. An average symphony will

> probably have at least fifteen or twenty. Now this is not 'proof' of

> complexity on its own, but is certainly one factor.

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

> I admit that I don't know Tremor or Opteth. But as for the others, well

yes.

> Anything by Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky, Richard Stauss,

> Vaughan Williams, Schostakovich, etc... Anything by practically any

> classical composer beyond the Baroque, really..

 

A lot of prog metal uses Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart styles and music in their

own - just for fun.

 

> I have heard, and enjoy, a lot of prog rock. I'm sitting next to a CD rack

> containing about a dozen Yes albums, four or five Dream Theatre

> albums...Genesis, Vai, Morse, etc. I do know about prog rock, although I

am

> not, compared with some, an expert.

 

I'm not particularly a Yes fan although they were good when I saw them, as

was Rick Wakeman. What is your favourie DT track.

 

>But, as I said in an earlier email, I

> don't allow my love of a genre to cloud my mind to its limitations.

 

I disagree.

 

Jo

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

As a slight aside - my boss plays violin in a symphony orchestra. She

agreed with me when I said that metal (particularly prog) was as complicated

as classical music.

 

Jo

 

> Hi John

>

> > I admit that I don't know Tremor or Opteth. But as for the others, well

> yes.

> > Anything by Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky, Richard Stauss,

> > Vaughan Williams, Schostakovich, etc... Anything by practically any

> > classical composer beyond the Baroque, really..

>

> I have performed works of several of the above - sorry, they aren't as

> complex or as intricate as any of the prog rock pieces I have performed.

>

> Incidentally, could you explain what you mean by " form " - this seems to be

> some sort of term that you've started using a lot because you've hooked

onto

> the fact that I don't know what it means. From the way you've used it so

> far, my current guess is that it is a term used by those who know a lot

> about music theory to baffle us mere mortals.

>

> > I have heard, and enjoy, a lot of prog rock. I'm sitting next to a CD

rack

> > containing about a dozen Yes albums, four or five Dream Theatre

> > albums...

>

> Shame you couldn't copy their name correctly off one of the CDs then :-)

>

> > Genesis, Vai, Morse, etc. I do know about prog rock, although I am

> > not, compared with some, an expert. But, as I said in an earlier email,

I

> > don't allow my love of a genre to cloud my mind to its limitations.

>

> How much of it have you played for yourself? How many prog metal pieces

have

> you arranged for use by a different selection of instruments?

>

> Perhaps a practical perspective would be more helpful. One of my " hobbies "

> is arranging and performing music in styles other than that in which it

was

> written - as such, I have arranged numerous classical pieces for

performance

> in a heavy rock style, and numerous progressive metal songs (and other

> metal, but that's a different kettle of fish) for performance by orchestra

> and choir. I can tell you, classical into rock is a piece of cake - prog

> metal to classical is far harder to catch all the underlying subtlety of

the

> piece.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Jo,

 

Hmm. I seem to have four emails on the same subject to reply to, so I hope

you'll forgive me if I indulge in a little snipping, and put those from you

together...

 

> I'm not particularly a Yes fan although they were good when I saw them, as

> was Rick Wakeman. What is your favourie DT track.

 

I don't have a favourite track as such, but certainly a favourite album -

Scenes from a Memory. Not just because it has my favourite moments on, but I

like its narrative sense of whole.

 

> >But, as I said in an earlier email, I

> > don't allow my love of a genre to cloud my mind to its limitations.

>

> I disagree.

 

Really? Which genres' limitations am I missing?

 

> I am no musician, but surely these distinct lines are like harmonies or

> parts of a melody. You wouldn't want 15 to 20 separate tunes going on in

on

> piece of music. I am not a fan of orchestral classical music, but can

not

> think of any that I am aware of that have that much going on, without it

> just contributing to the overall melody, or the basic rythm in some way.

> When I watch a symphony orchestra playing, they seem, in large part, to

take

> it in turns to play their parts. The percussionist usually sits for many

> minutes at a time doing nothing, and I feel in classical music is much

> underused.

 

The lines in a musical work can be described as falling into three general

categories of melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic, though often a single

instrument/desk will be fulfilling more than one of these roles at any time.

So when I say a piece may have 15 lines, this does not mean 15 melodies or

tunes. And indeed, you won't (often) hear 15 separate tunes at once, though

it has happened. More often you'll have a few lines providing the melodic

strands, more providing a harmonic role, with others - such as percussion -

providing essentially rhythmic lines.

 

Also, for the most part when you listen to a complex piece, be it classical

or rock, you'll tend to only pick up on a fraction of what is going on. The

instruments I play are primarily melodic, so my ear picks up the primary

couple of melodies, plus the basic rhythm, then maybe a rough idea of the

harmony. A friend of mine is a bass player, so hears the bass lines and

harmonies, but is often unable to whistle back the melody. It takes a lot of

training to hear all the parts in any piece, let alone a classical work, and

certainly it is beyond me.

 

John

 

 

-

" Heartwork " <Heartwork

 

Monday, May 19, 2003 8:32 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> > I admit that I don't know Tremor or Opteth. But as for the others, well

> yes.

> > Anything by Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky, Richard Stauss,

> > Vaughan Williams, Schostakovich, etc... Anything by practically any

> > classical composer beyond the Baroque, really..

>

> A lot of prog metal uses Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart styles and music in their

> own - just for fun.

>

> > I have heard, and enjoy, a lot of prog rock. I'm sitting next to a CD

rack

> > containing about a dozen Yes albums, four or five Dream Theatre

> > albums...Genesis, Vai, Morse, etc. I do know about prog rock, although I

> am

> > not, compared with some, an expert.

>

> I'm not particularly a Yes fan although they were good when I saw them, as

> was Rick Wakeman. What is your favourie DT track.

>

> >But, as I said in an earlier email, I

> > don't allow my love of a genre to cloud my mind to its limitations.

>

> I disagree.

>

> Jo

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Peter,

 

I seem to have four emails on the same subject to reply to, so I hope you'll

forgive me if I indulge in a little snipping, and put those from you

together...

 

> With only 13 distinct notes in an octave (i.e. 13 different notes which

can

> be played at once), and generally only 6 or 7 maximum different notes

played

> together sounding anything other than horrific

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear, in which case apologies. I was not talking about so

many different and separate melodies, but rather distinct lines (melodic,

harmonic, rhythmic). I've gone into detail about this in a reply to Jo's

email, so rather than repeat myself, can you take a look at that?

 

>.... why do you feel there is

> an advantage of having 15 distinct lines over 10?

 

Advantage? None at all. I don't think it is in some way better to have more

lines, or more complexity of form. It is just something a piece can have, or

not have. Ironically, I've spent many hours in the past arguing against

complexity of form, claiming that this detracts from the melodic aspects of

a work. I love folk (and country) precisely for its lack of complexity of

form, which allows the melody to take centre stage. I don't think complexity

of form is good in and of itself, and I don't even think it good from a

subjective viewpoint. But I do think classical music is possessed of more

complexity of form than any other western genre.

 

> By the way, something which I think would help us all understand where

you

> are coming from - which progressive metal groups are you referring to?

 

Flower Kings, Dream Theater, Yes, LTE, that kind of thing. Not my favourite

rock groups (Led Zeppelin, Queen, and - yes I'll admit it - Meat Loaf), but

those I thought were considered the more musically complex.

 

> Incidentally, could you explain what you mean by " form " - this seems to be

> some sort of term that you've started using a lot because you've hooked

onto

> the fact that I don't know what it means. From the way you've used it so

> far, my current guess is that it is a term used by those who know a lot

> about music theory to baffle us mere mortals.

 

Sorry, it wasn't meant to confuse. I was using it to try and distinguish it

from other aspects such as virtuosity of line, melodic content, etc. And

also to try and get away from any kind of qualititive implication - a piece

isn't good or bad, better or worse, because of complexity of form. And if

you work as an arranger, I'm sure you know as much or more about this as me

anyway. But to clarify...

 

By form I meant the harmonic and temporal structure of a work. So a simple

form might be a verse/chorus or ABA structure with a single melodic theme,

using the most basic of chords, say, first, fourth, fifth, and remaining in

a single key. Most folk and pop music falls happily into these simple forms

with very little varation, and, in my opinion, anything more often detracts

from the melodic content anyway. But by way of contrast, a classical work

will pass through many different keys, making use of scores of different

forms, and many musical themes, which are not only used but also developed.

And more than that, often not merely use these techniques but play with

them, confounding your expectations, breaking rules they have established,

drawing themes out from earlier themes.

 

> > I have heard, and enjoy, a lot of prog rock. I'm sitting next to a CD

rack

> > containing about a dozen Yes albums, four or five Dream Theatre

> > albums...

>

> Shame you couldn't copy their name correctly off one of the CDs then :-)

 

Yea, well, if they'd have spelt it right in the first place...!

 

> Perhaps a practical perspective would be more helpful. One of my " hobbies "

> is arranging and performing music in styles other than that in which it

was

> written - as such, I have arranged numerous classical pieces for

performance

> in a heavy rock style, and numerous progressive metal songs (and other

> metal, but that's a different kettle of fish) for performance by orchestra

> and choir. I can tell you, classical into rock is a piece of cake - prog

> metal to classical is far harder to catch all the underlying subtlety of

the

> piece.

 

This is something I have no experience of, so cannot really comment. But

that said (says he, about to comment), I do know that the complexity of form

doesn't really have much to do with how easy it is to transpose into a

different arrangement. The genius is in the creation of the form in the

first place. I can study Bach, and I can even follow some of his strands of

thought. But not in a thousand years could I ever come up with music even

remotely as complex. In the same way, I can take a great folk melody and

then add a harmonic structure, counter-melody, etc. But I couldn't have

written the melody in the first place.

 

John

 

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

Monday, May 19, 2003 6:17 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> Hi John

>

> > Rather than number of instruments, you could try considering the number

of

> > distinct lines playing at once. An average prog track may have up to ten

> or

> > so, though usually no more than five or six. An average symphony will

> > probably have at least fifteen or twenty. Now this is not 'proof' of

> > complexity on its own, but is certainly one factor.

>

> With only 13 distinct notes in an octave (i.e. 13 different notes which

can

> be played at once), and generally only 6 or 7 maximum different notes

played

> together sounding anything other than horrific.... why do you feel there

is

> an advantage of having 15 distinct lines over 10?

>

> By the way, something which I think would help us all understand where you

> are coming from - which progressive metal groups are you referring to?

>

> BB

> Peter

>

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi John

 

> It takes a lot of

> training to hear all the parts in any piece, let alone a classical work,

and

> certainly it is beyond me.

 

I think we now come to the crux of the matter. At the risk of sounding a bit

boastful (not intended that way, though), I have particularly sensitive

hearing, and my brain seems to somehow be able to distinguish exactly what

is happening in any piece of music. This is why I know very little music

theory - I simply have an affinity with musical tone, rhythm and character,

which makes the learning of theory a little pointless. This is something I

have been able to do since childhood (apparently I started singing when I

was about 2 years old, but don't have any particular recollection of that!).

Like some people can pick up a painting and know exactly how the artist held

his brush, and how many brush strokes they used, etc - I can do that with

music. I know exactly how a piece will sound if a particular instrument is

removed without having to hear it. From that point of view, I have never had

any training (although I have had some training in things like vocal

technique to help improve my own music making).

 

The point I'm making is that, with this understanding, I can take a piece of

music apart in my mind very easily, and understand how it is made up

(although I would have no ability to explain that piece of music in anything

approaching recognisable music theory). This is why I am so confident in

stating that progressive metal (in general) is as intricate / complex as

classical (in general).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi John

 

> Flower Kings, Dream Theater, Yes, LTE, that kind of thing.

 

I've not listened to much of the Flower Kings (doesn't really do much for

me), but what I have heard isn't the most complex of prog metal. Yes have

done at least two albums which were written for and recorded with a 120

piece orchestra and 100 piece choir - so basically 2 orchestral albums with

a few additionl rock instruments. LTE is, as the musicians clearly state, an

outlet for them to get the " virtuosity " out of their systems - basically,

they forgo writing style in order to show off on their chosen instruments,

so maybe not a good example of prog metal writing.

 

> By form I meant the harmonic and temporal structure of a work. So a simple

> form might be a verse/chorus or ABA structure with a single melodic theme,

> using the most basic of chords, say, first, fourth, fifth, and remaining

in

> a single key. Most folk and pop music falls happily into these simple

forms

> with very little varation, and, in my opinion, anything more often

detracts

> from the melodic content anyway. But by way of contrast, a classical work

> will pass through many different keys, making use of scores of different

> forms, and many musical themes, which are not only used but also

developed.

 

Ah - now I follow. To contradict you, the vast majority of pieces considered

" classical " fall into the " verse/chorus " form - virtually all Madrigals are

3 or 4 verses, usually repeated with no more than one key change at most.

Part Songs tend to be a bit more imaginative, with maybe a change into a

minor key part way through. Lullabies are usually relatively short pieces

repeated several times. Vocal ensemble pieces are usually verse/chorus

structure. Even within symphonies and concertos you will usually find

several " songs " which have oft repeated phrases - it is only when you take

the whole work in its entirity that there is a progression of form within

large orchestral / choral works.

 

Basically, you are comparing the classical world's equivalent of concept

albums with an individual prog metal song. What you are comparing is

something uneven. You mentioned the fact you like Scenes because of the

overall connection between the pieces - yet this is present on all DT

albums. It is more obvious on Scenes because it has one story line within

the lyrics, whereas the other albums tend to be a collection of songs about

different topics, but there is a musical theme running throughout, as is

fairly common with prog metal albums.

 

> And more than that, often not merely use these techniques but play with

> them, confounding your expectations, breaking rules they have established,

> drawing themes out from earlier themes.

 

So, you wouldn't consider having one instrument playing in 3-4 and another

in 4-4 to be " breaking established rules " ? Or having the ocassional 13-8 bar

thrown into a song to be " confounding expectations " ? You wouldn't consider

Learning To Live to draw themes from the rest of IAW? Or SFAM expanding

considerably on the whole of IAW? I wonder how you would react to some of my

stuff (I *love* breaking rules) - not only do I have points where 5

instruments are all playing against each other in different time signatures,

I also have bars which actually don't fit into the concept of a whole number

of beats to a bar (i.e. I have some bars in 4 and 2 thirds/4 - and I still

haven't found a way of getting my music-score programme to accept that) -

and my influence for doing this sort of thing is much more prog than

classical.

 

In my experience, classical musicians usually get a rather glazed look in

their eyes when something as " unexpected " as a 5-4 time signature hones into

view - some even let their upper lips quiver if you watch closely enough. If

" breaking rules " and " confounding expectations " were so common in classical,

then classical musicians would relish them - as do prog musicians.

 

> Yea, well, if they'd have spelt it right in the first place...!

 

LOL - they are American :-)

 

> This is something I have no experience of, so cannot really comment. But

> that said (says he, about to comment), I do know that the complexity of

form

> doesn't really have much to do with how easy it is to transpose into a

> different arrangement. The genius is in the creation of the form in the

> first place. I can study Bach, and I can even follow some of his strands

of

> thought. But not in a thousand years could I ever come up with music even

> remotely as complex. In the same way, I can take a great folk melody and

> then add a harmonic structure, counter-melody, etc. But I couldn't have

> written the melody in the first place.

 

I think that every music writer is different. I have some pieces that I am

very proud of - they aren't anything like many of the " great " composers, and

they have some similarities with others. But I always think it's a big

mistake to try to make my music sound like other composers - I'd rather be

myself - that way it is my emotion and passion that comes out :-)

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

John

 

 

> Really? Which genres' limitations am I missing?

 

Classical, as far as I can see.

 

> The lines in a musical work can be described as falling into three general

> categories of melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic, though often a single

> instrument/desk will be fulfilling more than one of these roles at any

time.

> So when I say a piece may have 15 lines, this does not mean 15 melodies or

> tunes. And indeed, you won't (often) hear 15 separate tunes at once,

though

> it has happened. More often you'll have a few lines providing the melodic

> strands, more providing a harmonic role, with others - such as

percussion -

> providing essentially rhythmic lines.

 

That was the point I was making.

>

> Also, for the most part when you listen to a complex piece, be it

classical

> or rock, you'll tend to only pick up on a fraction of what is going on.

 

I definitely disagree with that statement. I certainly don't miss parts of

any music I am listening to.

 

>The

> instruments I play are primarily melodic, so my ear picks up the primary

> couple of melodies, plus the basic rhythm, then maybe a rough idea of the

> harmony. A friend of mine is a bass player, so hears the bass lines and

> harmonies, but is often unable to whistle back the melody. It takes a lot

of

> training to hear all the parts in any piece, let alone a classical work,

and

> certainly it is beyond me.

 

I strongly disagree again. I am not a musician, but can easily hear the

different parts and intricacies. When Peter, Colin and I discuss the music

we like we discuss all the parts. I usually pick up on the drumming first

(try At The Gates, or if that is a little complicated, Rush or DT) but at

various listenings it is easy to follow the bass lines, melodies, rythms

etc. No problems there.

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>But I do think classical music is possessed of more

> complexity of form than any other western genre.

 

Apart from my boss who I mentioned the other day - today I was talking to a

friend who is a musician and singer. He gives singing lessons in his spare

time. He is not a fan of metal or prog rock/metal, but has listened to some

of mine. He agrees with me that he has not heard any classical music that

is more complicated.

 

Jo

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Peter

 

I think what you are saying is that a symphony should be compared with a

whole album - rather than just one track. If that is what you mean, then I

agree.

 

Jo

 

 

> Basically, you are comparing the classical world's equivalent of concept

> albums with an individual prog metal song. What you are comparing is

> something uneven. You mentioned the fact you like Scenes because of the

> overall connection between the pieces - yet this is present on all DT

> albums. It is more obvious on Scenes because it has one story line within

> the lyrics, whereas the other albums tend to be a collection of songs

about

> different topics, but there is a musical theme running throughout, as is

> fairly common with prog metal albums.

>

> > And more than that, often not merely use these techniques but play with

> > them, confounding your expectations, breaking rules they have

established,

> > drawing themes out from earlier themes.

>

> So, you wouldn't consider having one instrument playing in 3-4 and another

> in 4-4 to be " breaking established rules " ? Or having the ocassional 13-8

bar

> thrown into a song to be " confounding expectations " ? You wouldn't consider

> Learning To Live to draw themes from the rest of IAW? Or SFAM expanding

> considerably on the whole of IAW? I wonder how you would react to some of

my

> stuff (I *love* breaking rules) - not only do I have points where 5

> instruments are all playing against each other in different time

signatures,

> I also have bars which actually don't fit into the concept of a whole

number

> of beats to a bar (i.e. I have some bars in 4 and 2 thirds/4 - and I still

> haven't found a way of getting my music-score programme to accept that) -

> and my influence for doing this sort of thing is much more prog than

> classical.

>

> In my experience, classical musicians usually get a rather glazed look in

> their eyes when something as " unexpected " as a 5-4 time signature hones

into

> view - some even let their upper lips quiver if you watch closely enough.

If

> " breaking rules " and " confounding expectations " were so common in

classical,

> then classical musicians would relish them - as do prog musicians.

>

> > Yea, well, if they'd have spelt it right in the first place...!

>

> LOL - they are American :-)

>

> > This is something I have no experience of, so cannot really comment. But

> > that said (says he, about to comment), I do know that the complexity of

> form

> > doesn't really have much to do with how easy it is to transpose into a

> > different arrangement. The genius is in the creation of the form in the

> > first place. I can study Bach, and I can even follow some of his strands

> of

> > thought. But not in a thousand years could I ever come up with music

even

> > remotely as complex. In the same way, I can take a great folk melody and

> > then add a harmonic structure, counter-melody, etc. But I couldn't have

> > written the melody in the first place.

>

> I think that every music writer is different. I have some pieces that I am

> very proud of - they aren't anything like many of the " great " composers,

and

> they have some similarities with others. But I always think it's a big

> mistake to try to make my music sound like other composers - I'd rather be

> myself - that way it is my emotion and passion that comes out :-)

>

> BB

> Peter

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Peter,

 

> Ah - now I follow. To contradict you, the vast majority of pieces

considered

> " classical " fall into the " verse/chorus " form -

 

Well, a large number, certainly, though I'd hesitate to say majority. But I

think we were comparing the 'best' of classical with the 'best' of rock. And

whilst a large portion of classical music may be fairly simple in form, so

is the largest portion of rock.

 

> Basically, you are comparing the classical world's equivalent of concept

> albums with an individual prog metal song. What you are comparing is

> something uneven.

 

An interesting point, and you are right, it is in the entire work which

should be compared. But would you say that most rock, or even prog rock

albums, are a single work linked conceptually in some way? Some are,

certainly, and they tend to be amongst my favourites. But most do seem to be

made up of unrelated tracks. At what point does an album become a single

work? Or a suite of songs a single song cycle? I suppose the artists'

intention is the best guide. If a composer writes a set of individual pieces

and considers them individual, then they are. If Yes writes a set of tracks

and considers them a single work, then they are.

 

> So, you wouldn't consider having one instrument playing in 3-4 and another

> in 4-4 to be " breaking established rules " ? Or having the ocassional 13-8

bar

> thrown into a song to be " confounding expectations " ?

<snip, sorry>

 

Yes, I would. But wander through a romantic sympony and there polyrhthms are

the norm, not the exception, key and time changes occuring every few

minutes, not merely occasionally.

 

Personally, I also feel that prog rock rarely takes the time to develop and

expand ideas and themes, trying to cram too much into a single track, or

even a single album. And so in the space of a single work of two minutes,

there will be enough material and complexity to fill fifteen minutes of

symphony (or an hour if you're talking about Mahler). But this seems to be

compression of complexity rather than an increase in it, and if you take,

say, Scenes from a Memory, which is a longer work, the complexity is

'diluted', rather than there being more of it. (One reason I like it so much

I guess, being a fan of simplicity in music.) It takes someone of real

musical genius to maintain a level of complexity and coherence over a longer

work...Bach, Mozart, Brahms...and perhaps the most extreme case, of course,

Wagner.

 

> In my experience, classical musicians usually get a rather glazed look in

> their eyes when something as " unexpected " as a 5-4 time signature hones

into

> view - some even let their upper lips quiver if you watch closely enough.

If

> " breaking rules " and " confounding expectations " were so common in

classical,

> then classical musicians would relish them - as do prog musicians.

 

I think that they are so common that the average classical musican doesn't

even notice such things as unexpected. Polyrhthms, for example, occur across

an orchestra all the time - I'm listening, to my shame, to Strauss at the

moment, and even in one of his most cliched waltzes I'm hearing polyrhythms

and rhythmic shifts every minute or so. But the individual musicians often

aren't even aware of this. As I'm sure you know, part-writers try and make

the part as easy to read as possible, so instead of changing from 3/4 to 5/4

to 7/8, etc., they'll keep it in 4/4 and merely have the rhythms crossing

the bars. Parts of the orchestra may be in one time signagure, other parts

in another, thus achieving polyrhythms without having to make the musicians'

lips quiver. Classical music is often hugely more complex than the musicians

realise, whereas, I guess, in a prog group, where the musicians are also the

composers, they are more aware of this.

 

John

 

 

 

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:16 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> Hi John

>

> > Flower Kings, Dream Theater, Yes, LTE, that kind of thing.

>

> I've not listened to much of the Flower Kings (doesn't really do much for

> me), but what I have heard isn't the most complex of prog metal. Yes have

> done at least two albums which were written for and recorded with a 120

> piece orchestra and 100 piece choir - so basically 2 orchestral albums

with

> a few additionl rock instruments. LTE is, as the musicians clearly state,

an

> outlet for them to get the " virtuosity " out of their systems - basically,

> they forgo writing style in order to show off on their chosen instruments,

> so maybe not a good example of prog metal writing.

>

> > By form I meant the harmonic and temporal structure of a work. So a

simple

> > form might be a verse/chorus or ABA structure with a single melodic

theme,

> > using the most basic of chords, say, first, fourth, fifth, and remaining

> in

> > a single key. Most folk and pop music falls happily into these simple

> forms

> > with very little varation, and, in my opinion, anything more often

> detracts

> > from the melodic content anyway. But by way of contrast, a classical

work

> > will pass through many different keys, making use of scores of different

> > forms, and many musical themes, which are not only used but also

> developed.

>

> Ah - now I follow. To contradict you, the vast majority of pieces

considered

> " classical " fall into the " verse/chorus " form - virtually all Madrigals

are

> 3 or 4 verses, usually repeated with no more than one key change at most.

> Part Songs tend to be a bit more imaginative, with maybe a change into a

> minor key part way through. Lullabies are usually relatively short pieces

> repeated several times. Vocal ensemble pieces are usually verse/chorus

> structure. Even within symphonies and concertos you will usually find

> several " songs " which have oft repeated phrases - it is only when you take

> the whole work in its entirity that there is a progression of form within

> large orchestral / choral works.

>

> Basically, you are comparing the classical world's equivalent of concept

> albums with an individual prog metal song. What you are comparing is

> something uneven. You mentioned the fact you like Scenes because of the

> overall connection between the pieces - yet this is present on all DT

> albums. It is more obvious on Scenes because it has one story line within

> the lyrics, whereas the other albums tend to be a collection of songs

about

> different topics, but there is a musical theme running throughout, as is

> fairly common with prog metal albums.

>

> > And more than that, often not merely use these techniques but play with

> > them, confounding your expectations, breaking rules they have

established,

> > drawing themes out from earlier themes.

>

> So, you wouldn't consider having one instrument playing in 3-4 and another

> in 4-4 to be " breaking established rules " ? Or having the ocassional 13-8

bar

> thrown into a song to be " confounding expectations " ? You wouldn't consider

> Learning To Live to draw themes from the rest of IAW? Or SFAM expanding

> considerably on the whole of IAW? I wonder how you would react to some of

my

> stuff (I *love* breaking rules) - not only do I have points where 5

> instruments are all playing against each other in different time

signatures,

> I also have bars which actually don't fit into the concept of a whole

number

> of beats to a bar (i.e. I have some bars in 4 and 2 thirds/4 - and I still

> haven't found a way of getting my music-score programme to accept that) -

> and my influence for doing this sort of thing is much more prog than

> classical.

>

> In my experience, classical musicians usually get a rather glazed look in

> their eyes when something as " unexpected " as a 5-4 time signature hones

into

> view - some even let their upper lips quiver if you watch closely enough.

If

> " breaking rules " and " confounding expectations " were so common in

classical,

> then classical musicians would relish them - as do prog musicians.

>

> > Yea, well, if they'd have spelt it right in the first place...!

>

> LOL - they are American :-)

>

> > This is something I have no experience of, so cannot really comment. But

> > that said (says he, about to comment), I do know that the complexity of

> form

> > doesn't really have much to do with how easy it is to transpose into a

> > different arrangement. The genius is in the creation of the form in the

> > first place. I can study Bach, and I can even follow some of his strands

> of

> > thought. But not in a thousand years could I ever come up with music

even

> > remotely as complex. In the same way, I can take a great folk melody and

> > then add a harmonic structure, counter-melody, etc. But I couldn't have

> > written the melody in the first place.

>

> I think that every music writer is different. I have some pieces that I am

> very proud of - they aren't anything like many of the " great " composers,

and

> they have some similarities with others. But I always think it's a big

> mistake to try to make my music sound like other composers - I'd rather be

> myself - that way it is my emotion and passion that comes out :-)

>

> BB

> Peter

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi,

 

> I think we now come to the crux of the matter. At the risk of sounding a

bit

> boastful (not intended that way, though), I have particularly sensitive

> hearing, and my brain seems to somehow be able to distinguish exactly what

> is happening in any piece of music.

 

Well, that is something that is hard for me to argue with. And if you have

that gift, then I am very envious. But I will point out that throughout the

history of classical music, there are only a handful of people who possessed

the ability you are describing. A few composers - Mozart, Bach, Mendellsohn,

one or two conductors...But even the great arrangers such as Mussorgsky,

Elgar, Debussy, didn't possess it, and had to sit down and work out more

complex harmonic progressions, etc.

 

For myself, I can hear parts in my head, can generally hear the harmonic

progression in a simple folk or pop track, and sometimes the harmonic

structure of a more complex prog rock track or Baroque concerto. But

symphonies, chorales, sonatas, even motets...they are far beyond my

instinctive grasp, and indeed the grasp training in musical analysis has

given me. I can follow someone else if they lead me through the form, but

can not work it out on my own.

 

I think you are right, that here is the crux of the matter, and that this is

why I claim classical music to be more complex. Because I can, with effort

(a lot of effort, now that my university years are far behind me), sit down

and analyse most prog rock put before me. But there is no way I can do that

with most romantic classical music, and certainly not contemporary and 20th

c. works. And from that, I reach the assumption that this music is more

complex. If, on the other hand, you can equally analyse all of this music,

be it prog or classical, then it is understandable if you don't see one as

more complex than the other.

 

John

 

 

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:40 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> Hi John

>

> > It takes a lot of

> > training to hear all the parts in any piece, let alone a classical work,

> and

> > certainly it is beyond me.

>

> I think we now come to the crux of the matter. At the risk of sounding a

bit

> boastful (not intended that way, though), I have particularly sensitive

> hearing, and my brain seems to somehow be able to distinguish exactly what

> is happening in any piece of music. This is why I know very little music

> theory - I simply have an affinity with musical tone, rhythm and

character,

> which makes the learning of theory a little pointless. This is something I

> have been able to do since childhood (apparently I started singing when I

> was about 2 years old, but don't have any particular recollection of

that!).

> Like some people can pick up a painting and know exactly how the artist

held

> his brush, and how many brush strokes they used, etc - I can do that with

> music. I know exactly how a piece will sound if a particular instrument is

> removed without having to hear it. From that point of view, I have never

had

> any training (although I have had some training in things like vocal

> technique to help improve my own music making).

>

> The point I'm making is that, with this understanding, I can take a piece

of

> music apart in my mind very easily, and understand how it is made up

> (although I would have no ability to explain that piece of music in

anything

> approaching recognisable music theory). This is why I am so confident in

> stating that progressive metal (in general) is as intricate / complex as

> classical (in general).

>

> BB

> Peter

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Jo,

 

> > Really? Which genres' limitations am I missing?

>

> Classical, as far as I can see.

 

I'm not sure I am. The classical genre has many limitations, some of them

quite literally crippling to the genre, such as its frequent elitism and

conservatism. But I don't think lack of complexity of form is one of

them...I'm not sure how to make this question not sound irrate/hypothetical,

but I do actually want to know - what limitations of classical music am I

missing?

 

> I strongly disagree again. I am not a musician, but can easily hear the

> different parts and intricacies. When Peter, Colin and I discuss the

music

> we like we discuss all the parts. I usually pick up on the drumming first

> (try At The Gates, or if that is a little complicated, Rush or DT) but at

> various listenings it is easy to follow the bass lines, melodies, rythms

> etc. No problems there.

 

Then you are a far better listenener than I am. I can hear the individual

lines, most of them most of the time, anyway. But understanding how and why

they have been introduced, their place and point in the whole? Hearing the

harmony behind them? And why the harmony does what it does? That's all, for

the most part, beyond me.

 

John

 

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 7:30 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> John

>

>

> > Really? Which genres' limitations am I missing?

>

> Classical, as far as I can see.

>

> > The lines in a musical work can be described as falling into three

general

> > categories of melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic, though often a single

> > instrument/desk will be fulfilling more than one of these roles at any

> time.

> > So when I say a piece may have 15 lines, this does not mean 15 melodies

or

> > tunes. And indeed, you won't (often) hear 15 separate tunes at once,

> though

> > it has happened. More often you'll have a few lines providing the

melodic

> > strands, more providing a harmonic role, with others - such as

> percussion -

> > providing essentially rhythmic lines.

>

> That was the point I was making.

> >

> > Also, for the most part when you listen to a complex piece, be it

> classical

> > or rock, you'll tend to only pick up on a fraction of what is going on.

>

> I definitely disagree with that statement. I certainly don't miss parts

of

> any music I am listening to.

>

> >The

> > instruments I play are primarily melodic, so my ear picks up the primary

> > couple of melodies, plus the basic rhythm, then maybe a rough idea of

the

> > harmony. A friend of mine is a bass player, so hears the bass lines and

> > harmonies, but is often unable to whistle back the melody. It takes a

lot

> of

> > training to hear all the parts in any piece, let alone a classical work,

> and

> > certainly it is beyond me.

>

> I strongly disagree again. I am not a musician, but can easily hear the

> different parts and intricacies. When Peter, Colin and I discuss the

music

> we like we discuss all the parts. I usually pick up on the drumming first

> (try At The Gates, or if that is a little complicated, Rush or DT) but at

> various listenings it is easy to follow the bass lines, melodies, rythms

> etc. No problems there.

>

> Jo

>

>

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

> I'm not sure I am. The classical genre has many limitations, some of them

> quite literally crippling to the genre, such as its frequent elitism and

> conservatism. But I don't think lack of complexity of form is one of

> them...I'm not sure how to make this question not sound

irrate/hypothetical,

> but I do actually want to know - what limitations of classical music am I

> missing?

 

I haven't got a clue - but you were accusing others of letting their love

for a genre make them overlook it's limitations. I just feel that the same

probably applies to you.

 

> Then you are a far better listenener than I am. I can hear the individual

> lines, most of them most of the time, anyway. But understanding how and

why

> they have been introduced, their place and point in the whole? Hearing the

> harmony behind them? And why the harmony does what it does? That's all,

for

> the most part, beyond me.

 

To hear them and enjoy them you don't need to understand why they are there.

I don't even know how to describe the music I hear. My family seem to

understand when I describe notes as angles and melodies, rythms as feelings.

I can't understand what you think you are missing. It would seem to be a

little like the Emperors new clothes.

 

Jo

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi John

 

It could be that there have been (or are) many thousands of people who

possess that ability. Not all of them manage to be famous for their talent,

or choose to follow another path for various reasons, so therefore it

follows that we would not have heard of them. While I know Peter is a

talented person I'm sure he's not unique for that talent.

 

Jo

 

> Well, that is something that is hard for me to argue with. And if you have

> that gift, then I am very envious. But I will point out that throughout

the

> history of classical music, there are only a handful of people who

possessed

> the ability you are describing. A few composers - Mozart, Bach,

Mendellsohn,

> one or two conductors...But even the great arrangers such as Mussorgsky,

> Elgar, Debussy, didn't possess it, and had to sit down and work out more

> complex harmonic progressions, etc.

>

> For myself, I can hear parts in my head, can generally hear the harmonic

> progression in a simple folk or pop track, and sometimes the harmonic

> structure of a more complex prog rock track or Baroque concerto. But

> symphonies, chorales, sonatas, even motets...they are far beyond my

> instinctive grasp, and indeed the grasp training in musical analysis has

> given me. I can follow someone else if they lead me through the form, but

> can not work it out on my own.

>

> I think you are right, that here is the crux of the matter, and that this

is

> why I claim classical music to be more complex. Because I can, with effort

> (a lot of effort, now that my university years are far behind me), sit

down

> and analyse most prog rock put before me. But there is no way I can do

that

> with most romantic classical music, and certainly not contemporary and

20th

> c. works. And from that, I reach the assumption that this music is more

> complex. If, on the other hand, you can equally analyse all of this music,

> be it prog or classical, then it is understandable if you don't see one as

> more complex than the other.

>

> John

>

>

> -

> " Peter " <Snowbow

>

> Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:40 PM

> Re: Peter, the moderator

>

>

> > Hi John

> >

> > > It takes a lot of

> > > training to hear all the parts in any piece, let alone a classical

work,

> > and

> > > certainly it is beyond me.

> >

> > I think we now come to the crux of the matter. At the risk of sounding a

> bit

> > boastful (not intended that way, though), I have particularly sensitive

> > hearing, and my brain seems to somehow be able to distinguish exactly

what

> > is happening in any piece of music. This is why I know very little music

> > theory - I simply have an affinity with musical tone, rhythm and

> character,

> > which makes the learning of theory a little pointless. This is something

I

> > have been able to do since childhood (apparently I started singing when

I

> > was about 2 years old, but don't have any particular recollection of

> that!).

> > Like some people can pick up a painting and know exactly how the artist

> held

> > his brush, and how many brush strokes they used, etc - I can do that

with

> > music. I know exactly how a piece will sound if a particular instrument

is

> > removed without having to hear it. From that point of view, I have never

> had

> > any training (although I have had some training in things like vocal

> > technique to help improve my own music making).

> >

> > The point I'm making is that, with this understanding, I can take a

piece

> of

> > music apart in my mind very easily, and understand how it is made up

> > (although I would have no ability to explain that piece of music in

> anything

> > approaching recognisable music theory). This is why I am so confident in

> > stating that progressive metal (in general) is as intricate / complex as

> > classical (in general).

> >

> > BB

> > Peter

> >

> >

> > ---

> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

> >

> >

> >

> > To send an email to -

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sorry to keep butting in John - I hope you don't mind.

 

I think a lot of prog albums have tracks which are linked by a returning

theme played differently (I know what I mean, but remember I am not a

musician) - just as the six notes played when Annikin Skywalker dies are

played in different ways (moods) throughout the film score. It is not

necessarily the lyrics or melody that link the tracks.

 

With regard to your comment on prog rock cramming too much into two minutes

(? - most tracks are far longer) instead of letting this develop - this

surely is a consideration when fitting music onto a cd. When these bands

play live the certainly expand on their tracks. With regard to your mention

of the complexities of Bach I think I have mentioned before that a lot of

prog metal bands play Bach or Vivaldi etc. for the fun parts of their

concerts.

 

Jo

 

> An interesting point, and you are right, it is in the entire work which

> should be compared. But would you say that most rock, or even prog rock

> albums, are a single work linked conceptually in some way? Some are,

> certainly, and they tend to be amongst my favourites. But most do seem to

be

> made up of unrelated tracks. At what point does an album become a single

> work? Or a suite of songs a single song cycle? I suppose the artists'

> intention is the best guide. If a composer writes a set of individual

pieces

> and considers them individual, then they are. If Yes writes a set of

tracks

> and considers them a single work, then they are.

>

> > So, you wouldn't consider having one instrument playing in 3-4 and

another

> > in 4-4 to be " breaking established rules " ? Or having the ocassional 13-8

> bar

> > thrown into a song to be " confounding expectations " ?

> <snip, sorry>

>

> Yes, I would. But wander through a romantic sympony and there polyrhthms

are

> the norm, not the exception, key and time changes occuring every few

> minutes, not merely occasionally.

>

> Personally, I also feel that prog rock rarely takes the time to develop

and

> expand ideas and themes, trying to cram too much into a single track, or

> even a single album. And so in the space of a single work of two minutes,

> there will be enough material and complexity to fill fifteen minutes of

> symphony (or an hour if you're talking about Mahler). But this seems to be

> compression of complexity rather than an increase in it, and if you take,

> say, Scenes from a Memory, which is a longer work, the complexity is

> 'diluted', rather than there being more of it. (One reason I like it so

much

> I guess, being a fan of simplicity in music.) It takes someone of real

> musical genius to maintain a level of complexity and coherence over a

longer

> work...Bach, Mozart, Brahms...and perhaps the most extreme case, of

course,

> Wagner.

>

> > In my experience, classical musicians usually get a rather glazed look

in

> > their eyes when something as " unexpected " as a 5-4 time signature hones

> into

> > view - some even let their upper lips quiver if you watch closely

enough.

> If

> > " breaking rules " and " confounding expectations " were so common in

> classical,

> > then classical musicians would relish them - as do prog musicians.

>

> I think that they are so common that the average classical musican doesn't

> even notice such things as unexpected. Polyrhthms, for example, occur

across

> an orchestra all the time - I'm listening, to my shame, to Strauss at the

> moment, and even in one of his most cliched waltzes I'm hearing

polyrhythms

> and rhythmic shifts every minute or so. But the individual musicians often

> aren't even aware of this. As I'm sure you know, part-writers try and make

> the part as easy to read as possible, so instead of changing from 3/4 to

5/4

> to 7/8, etc., they'll keep it in 4/4 and merely have the rhythms crossing

> the bars. Parts of the orchestra may be in one time signagure, other parts

> in another, thus achieving polyrhythms without having to make the

musicians'

> lips quiver. Classical music is often hugely more complex than the

musicians

> realise, whereas, I guess, in a prog group, where the musicians are also

the

> composers, they are more aware of this.

>

> John

>

>

>

> -

> " Peter " <Snowbow

>

> Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:16 PM

> Re: Peter, the moderator

>

>

> > Hi John

> >

> > > Flower Kings, Dream Theater, Yes, LTE, that kind of thing.

> >

> > I've not listened to much of the Flower Kings (doesn't really do much

for

> > me), but what I have heard isn't the most complex of prog metal. Yes

have

> > done at least two albums which were written for and recorded with a 120

> > piece orchestra and 100 piece choir - so basically 2 orchestral albums

> with

> > a few additionl rock instruments. LTE is, as the musicians clearly

state,

> an

> > outlet for them to get the " virtuosity " out of their systems -

basically,

> > they forgo writing style in order to show off on their chosen

instruments,

> > so maybe not a good example of prog metal writing.

> >

> > > By form I meant the harmonic and temporal structure of a work. So a

> simple

> > > form might be a verse/chorus or ABA structure with a single melodic

> theme,

> > > using the most basic of chords, say, first, fourth, fifth, and

remaining

> > in

> > > a single key. Most folk and pop music falls happily into these simple

> > forms

> > > with very little varation, and, in my opinion, anything more often

> > detracts

> > > from the melodic content anyway. But by way of contrast, a classical

> work

> > > will pass through many different keys, making use of scores of

different

> > > forms, and many musical themes, which are not only used but also

> > developed.

> >

> > Ah - now I follow. To contradict you, the vast majority of pieces

> considered

> > " classical " fall into the " verse/chorus " form - virtually all Madrigals

> are

> > 3 or 4 verses, usually repeated with no more than one key change at

most.

> > Part Songs tend to be a bit more imaginative, with maybe a change into a

> > minor key part way through. Lullabies are usually relatively short

pieces

> > repeated several times. Vocal ensemble pieces are usually verse/chorus

> > structure. Even within symphonies and concertos you will usually find

> > several " songs " which have oft repeated phrases - it is only when you

take

> > the whole work in its entirity that there is a progression of form

within

> > large orchestral / choral works.

> >

> > Basically, you are comparing the classical world's equivalent of concept

> > albums with an individual prog metal song. What you are comparing is

> > something uneven. You mentioned the fact you like Scenes because of the

> > overall connection between the pieces - yet this is present on all DT

> > albums. It is more obvious on Scenes because it has one story line

within

> > the lyrics, whereas the other albums tend to be a collection of songs

> about

> > different topics, but there is a musical theme running throughout, as is

> > fairly common with prog metal albums.

> >

> > > And more than that, often not merely use these techniques but play

with

> > > them, confounding your expectations, breaking rules they have

> established,

> > > drawing themes out from earlier themes.

> >

> > So, you wouldn't consider having one instrument playing in 3-4 and

another

> > in 4-4 to be " breaking established rules " ? Or having the ocassional 13-8

> bar

> > thrown into a song to be " confounding expectations " ? You wouldn't

consider

> > Learning To Live to draw themes from the rest of IAW? Or SFAM expanding

> > considerably on the whole of IAW? I wonder how you would react to some

of

> my

> > stuff (I *love* breaking rules) - not only do I have points where 5

> > instruments are all playing against each other in different time

> signatures,

> > I also have bars which actually don't fit into the concept of a whole

> number

> > of beats to a bar (i.e. I have some bars in 4 and 2 thirds/4 - and I

still

> > haven't found a way of getting my music-score programme to accept

that) -

> > and my influence for doing this sort of thing is much more prog than

> > classical.

> >

> > In my experience, classical musicians usually get a rather glazed look

in

> > their eyes when something as " unexpected " as a 5-4 time signature hones

> into

> > view - some even let their upper lips quiver if you watch closely

enough.

> If

> > " breaking rules " and " confounding expectations " were so common in

> classical,

> > then classical musicians would relish them - as do prog musicians.

> >

> > > Yea, well, if they'd have spelt it right in the first place...!

> >

> > LOL - they are American :-)

> >

> > > This is something I have no experience of, so cannot really comment.

But

> > > that said (says he, about to comment), I do know that the complexity

of

> > form

> > > doesn't really have much to do with how easy it is to transpose into a

> > > different arrangement. The genius is in the creation of the form in

the

> > > first place. I can study Bach, and I can even follow some of his

strands

> > of

> > > thought. But not in a thousand years could I ever come up with music

> even

> > > remotely as complex. In the same way, I can take a great folk melody

and

> > > then add a harmonic structure, counter-melody, etc. But I couldn't

have

> > > written the melody in the first place.

> >

> > I think that every music writer is different. I have some pieces that I

am

> > very proud of - they aren't anything like many of the " great " composers,

> and

> > they have some similarities with others. But I always think it's a big

> > mistake to try to make my music sound like other composers - I'd rather

be

> > myself - that way it is my emotion and passion that comes out :-)

> >

> > BB

> > Peter

> >

> >

> > ---

> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

> >

> >

> >

> > To send an email to -

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi John

 

> Well, that is something that is hard for me to argue with. And if you have

> that gift, then I am very envious. But I will point out that throughout

the

> history of classical music, there are only a handful of people who

possessed

> the ability you are describing. A few composers - Mozart, Bach,

Mendellsohn,

> one or two conductors...But even the great arrangers such as Mussorgsky,

> Elgar, Debussy, didn't possess it, and had to sit down and work out more

> complex harmonic progressions, etc.

 

Well, in that case, I shall just have to sit here with a smug grin :-)

 

> I think you are right, that here is the crux of the matter, and that this

is

> why I claim classical music to be more complex. Because I can, with effort

> (a lot of effort, now that my university years are far behind me), sit

down

> and analyse most prog rock put before me. But there is no way I can do

that

> with most romantic classical music, and certainly not contemporary and

20th

> c. works. And from that, I reach the assumption that this music is more

> complex. If, on the other hand, you can equally analyse all of this music,

> be it prog or classical, then it is understandable if you don't see one as

> more complex than the other.

 

Alternatively, maybe you only *think* that you can fully analyse a prog

metal piece? Perhaps you (as with many classical musicians) miss many of the

subtleties of prog metal.

 

And as for contemporary classical - I tend to steer away from that, as I

find it mostly to be incredibly tedious. The worst piece of music I've ever

sung was Hymn to Cecilia by Byron Adams. Of course, I'm assuming when you

say " contemporary music " , you're not including modern composers who write in

a more traditional style.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Jo,

 

> It could be that there have been (or are) many thousands of people who

> possess that ability. Not all of them manage to be famous for their

talent,

> or choose to follow another path for various reasons, so therefore it

> follows that we would not have heard of them.

 

Could be. And there is the famous argument that a thousand Shakespeares,

Einsteins and Mozarts have been born, just most of them in the wrong place

or circumstance, and so unable to take advantage of their abilities. On the

other hand, there is the contrary argument that says that if someone such a

phenomenal talent, they will find a way to make use of it. Hard to know

which is right, as neither is really provable.

 

John

 

-

" Heartwork " <Heartwork

 

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:21 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> Hi John

>

> It could be that there have been (or are) many thousands of people who

> possess that ability. Not all of them manage to be famous for their

talent,

> or choose to follow another path for various reasons, so therefore it

> follows that we would not have heard of them. While I know Peter is a

> talented person I'm sure he's not unique for that talent.

>

> Jo

>

> > Well, that is something that is hard for me to argue with. And if you

have

> > that gift, then I am very envious. But I will point out that throughout

> the

> > history of classical music, there are only a handful of people who

> possessed

> > the ability you are describing. A few composers - Mozart, Bach,

> Mendellsohn,

> > one or two conductors...But even the great arrangers such as Mussorgsky,

> > Elgar, Debussy, didn't possess it, and had to sit down and work out more

> > complex harmonic progressions, etc.

> >

> > For myself, I can hear parts in my head, can generally hear the harmonic

> > progression in a simple folk or pop track, and sometimes the harmonic

> > structure of a more complex prog rock track or Baroque concerto. But

> > symphonies, chorales, sonatas, even motets...they are far beyond my

> > instinctive grasp, and indeed the grasp training in musical analysis has

> > given me. I can follow someone else if they lead me through the form,

but

> > can not work it out on my own.

> >

> > I think you are right, that here is the crux of the matter, and that

this

> is

> > why I claim classical music to be more complex. Because I can, with

effort

> > (a lot of effort, now that my university years are far behind me), sit

> down

> > and analyse most prog rock put before me. But there is no way I can do

> that

> > with most romantic classical music, and certainly not contemporary and

> 20th

> > c. works. And from that, I reach the assumption that this music is more

> > complex. If, on the other hand, you can equally analyse all of this

music,

> > be it prog or classical, then it is understandable if you don't see one

as

> > more complex than the other.

> >

> > John

> >

> >

> > -

> > " Peter " <Snowbow

> >

> > Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:40 PM

> > Re: Peter, the moderator

> >

> >

> > > Hi John

> > >

> > > > It takes a lot of

> > > > training to hear all the parts in any piece, let alone a classical

> work,

> > > and

> > > > certainly it is beyond me.

> > >

> > > I think we now come to the crux of the matter. At the risk of sounding

a

> > bit

> > > boastful (not intended that way, though), I have particularly

sensitive

> > > hearing, and my brain seems to somehow be able to distinguish exactly

> what

> > > is happening in any piece of music. This is why I know very little

music

> > > theory - I simply have an affinity with musical tone, rhythm and

> > character,

> > > which makes the learning of theory a little pointless. This is

something

> I

> > > have been able to do since childhood (apparently I started singing

when

> I

> > > was about 2 years old, but don't have any particular recollection of

> > that!).

> > > Like some people can pick up a painting and know exactly how the

artist

> > held

> > > his brush, and how many brush strokes they used, etc - I can do that

> with

> > > music. I know exactly how a piece will sound if a particular

instrument

> is

> > > removed without having to hear it. From that point of view, I have

never

> > had

> > > any training (although I have had some training in things like vocal

> > > technique to help improve my own music making).

> > >

> > > The point I'm making is that, with this understanding, I can take a

> piece

> > of

> > > music apart in my mind very easily, and understand how it is made up

> > > (although I would have no ability to explain that piece of music in

> > anything

> > > approaching recognisable music theory). This is why I am so confident

in

> > > stating that progressive metal (in general) is as intricate / complex

as

> > > classical (in general).

> > >

> > > BB

> > > Peter

> > >

> > >

> > > ---

> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To send an email to -

> > >

> > >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Jo,

 

> I haven't got a clue - but you were accusing others of letting their love

> for a genre make them overlook it's limitations. I just feel that the same

> probably applies to you.

 

Perhaps it does. But I do strive to see everything as objectively as

possible, so whilst I've many flaws, I'd like to hope that this isn't one of

them. On the other hand, I do tend to defend the genre more rigorously than

I'd defend, say, rap music, so I guess that in itself is a kind of

overlooking of its limitations, or at least, encourages a glossing over of

them to concentrate on its strengths. Hmm.

 

John

 

 

-

" Heartwork " <Heartwork

 

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:03 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> > I'm not sure I am. The classical genre has many limitations, some of

them

> > quite literally crippling to the genre, such as its frequent elitism and

> > conservatism. But I don't think lack of complexity of form is one of

> > them...I'm not sure how to make this question not sound

> irrate/hypothetical,

> > but I do actually want to know - what limitations of classical music am

I

> > missing?

>

> I haven't got a clue - but you were accusing others of letting their love

> for a genre make them overlook it's limitations. I just feel that the same

> probably applies to you.

>

> > Then you are a far better listenener than I am. I can hear the

individual

> > lines, most of them most of the time, anyway. But understanding how and

> why

> > they have been introduced, their place and point in the whole? Hearing

the

> > harmony behind them? And why the harmony does what it does? That's all,

> for

> > the most part, beyond me.

>

> To hear them and enjoy them you don't need to understand why they are

there.

> I don't even know how to describe the music I hear. My family seem to

> understand when I describe notes as angles and melodies, rythms as

feelings.

> I can't understand what you think you are missing. It would seem to be a

> little like the Emperors new clothes.

>

> Jo

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Jo,

 

> Sorry to keep butting in John - I hope you don't mind.

 

Please always butt in...best thing about discussing something on a list is

you get a lot of opinions!

 

> I think a lot of prog albums have tracks which are linked by a returning

> theme played differently (I know what I mean, but remember I am not a

> musician) - just as the six notes played when Annikin Skywalker dies are

> played in different ways (moods) throughout the film score. It is not

> necessarily the lyrics or melody that link the tracks.

 

True. The use of a liet motif/returning melody is a common one. But the

extent of the development varies greatly. Bach frequently introduces several

apparently separate themes, only to gradually show through development that

they are really the same theme, or draws a second theme out of a part of the

first, develops it, upon which it is seen that the first really came out of

the second, etc. My favourite example at the moment is a Schumann work,

where he begins with a theme meant to represent himself. Then a theme

representing his wife appears, merges with Schumans', to become something

greater, Schumann's then falling away to leave a celebrationary version of

his wifes'.

 

> With regard to your comment on prog rock cramming too much into two

minutes

> (? - most tracks are far longer) instead of letting this develop - this

> surely is a consideration when fitting music onto a cd. When these bands

> play live the certainly expand on their tracks.

 

Hmm. Possibly. But I tend to be of the opinion that a work must stand on its

own. Haydn was constricted by the orchestra available at his court,

Palestrina was banned from using various 'demonic' chords, Mozart was

essentially a jobbing musician who - in theory at least - wrote what he was

told. But you can't judge, say, a Haydn symphony based on what he might have

written, or a prog track based on what they might have played if they had

the space. Well, you can, I suppose. But it does rather lead to the 'what

if' type of argument. As an aside, a classical solo performer playing live

will frequently extemporise on cadenzas, etc., though this is not an

increase in complexity so much as virtuosity.

 

John

 

-

" Heartwork " <Heartwork

 

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:34 PM

Re: Peter, the moderator

 

 

> Sorry to keep butting in John - I hope you don't mind.

>

> I think a lot of prog albums have tracks which are linked by a returning

> theme played differently (I know what I mean, but remember I am not a

> musician) - just as the six notes played when Annikin Skywalker dies are

> played in different ways (moods) throughout the film score. It is not

> necessarily the lyrics or melody that link the tracks.

>

> With regard to your comment on prog rock cramming too much into two

minutes

> (? - most tracks are far longer) instead of letting this develop - this

> surely is a consideration when fitting music onto a cd. When these bands

> play live the certainly expand on their tracks. With regard to your

mention

> of the complexities of Bach I think I have mentioned before that a lot of

> prog metal bands play Bach or Vivaldi etc. for the fun parts of their

> concerts.

>

> Jo

>

> > An interesting point, and you are right, it is in the entire work which

> > should be compared. But would you say that most rock, or even prog rock

> > albums, are a single work linked conceptually in some way? Some are,

> > certainly, and they tend to be amongst my favourites. But most do seem

to

> be

> > made up of unrelated tracks. At what point does an album become a single

> > work? Or a suite of songs a single song cycle? I suppose the artists'

> > intention is the best guide. If a composer writes a set of individual

> pieces

> > and considers them individual, then they are. If Yes writes a set of

> tracks

> > and considers them a single work, then they are.

> >

> > > So, you wouldn't consider having one instrument playing in 3-4 and

> another

> > > in 4-4 to be " breaking established rules " ? Or having the ocassional

13-8

> > bar

> > > thrown into a song to be " confounding expectations " ?

> > <snip, sorry>

> >

> > Yes, I would. But wander through a romantic sympony and there polyrhthms

> are

> > the norm, not the exception, key and time changes occuring every few

> > minutes, not merely occasionally.

> >

> > Personally, I also feel that prog rock rarely takes the time to develop

> and

> > expand ideas and themes, trying to cram too much into a single track, or

> > even a single album. And so in the space of a single work of two

minutes,

> > there will be enough material and complexity to fill fifteen minutes of

> > symphony (or an hour if you're talking about Mahler). But this seems to

be

> > compression of complexity rather than an increase in it, and if you

take,

> > say, Scenes from a Memory, which is a longer work, the complexity is

> > 'diluted', rather than there being more of it. (One reason I like it so

> much

> > I guess, being a fan of simplicity in music.) It takes someone of real

> > musical genius to maintain a level of complexity and coherence over a

> longer

> > work...Bach, Mozart, Brahms...and perhaps the most extreme case, of

> course,

> > Wagner.

> >

> > > In my experience, classical musicians usually get a rather glazed look

> in

> > > their eyes when something as " unexpected " as a 5-4 time signature

hones

> > into

> > > view - some even let their upper lips quiver if you watch closely

> enough.

> > If

> > > " breaking rules " and " confounding expectations " were so common in

> > classical,

> > > then classical musicians would relish them - as do prog musicians.

> >

> > I think that they are so common that the average classical musican

doesn't

> > even notice such things as unexpected. Polyrhthms, for example, occur

> across

> > an orchestra all the time - I'm listening, to my shame, to Strauss at

the

> > moment, and even in one of his most cliched waltzes I'm hearing

> polyrhythms

> > and rhythmic shifts every minute or so. But the individual musicians

often

> > aren't even aware of this. As I'm sure you know, part-writers try and

make

> > the part as easy to read as possible, so instead of changing from 3/4 to

> 5/4

> > to 7/8, etc., they'll keep it in 4/4 and merely have the rhythms

crossing

> > the bars. Parts of the orchestra may be in one time signagure, other

parts

> > in another, thus achieving polyrhythms without having to make the

> musicians'

> > lips quiver. Classical music is often hugely more complex than the

> musicians

> > realise, whereas, I guess, in a prog group, where the musicians are also

> the

> > composers, they are more aware of this.

> >

> > John

> >

> >

> >

> > -

> > " Peter " <Snowbow

> >

> > Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:16 PM

> > Re: Peter, the moderator

> >

> >

> > > Hi John

> > >

> > > > Flower Kings, Dream Theater, Yes, LTE, that kind of thing.

> > >

> > > I've not listened to much of the Flower Kings (doesn't really do much

> for

> > > me), but what I have heard isn't the most complex of prog metal. Yes

> have

> > > done at least two albums which were written for and recorded with a

120

> > > piece orchestra and 100 piece choir - so basically 2 orchestral albums

> > with

> > > a few additionl rock instruments. LTE is, as the musicians clearly

> state,

> > an

> > > outlet for them to get the " virtuosity " out of their systems -

> basically,

> > > they forgo writing style in order to show off on their chosen

> instruments,

> > > so maybe not a good example of prog metal writing.

> > >

> > > > By form I meant the harmonic and temporal structure of a work. So a

> > simple

> > > > form might be a verse/chorus or ABA structure with a single melodic

> > theme,

> > > > using the most basic of chords, say, first, fourth, fifth, and

> remaining

> > > in

> > > > a single key. Most folk and pop music falls happily into these

simple

> > > forms

> > > > with very little varation, and, in my opinion, anything more often

> > > detracts

> > > > from the melodic content anyway. But by way of contrast, a classical

> > work

> > > > will pass through many different keys, making use of scores of

> different

> > > > forms, and many musical themes, which are not only used but also

> > > developed.

> > >

> > > Ah - now I follow. To contradict you, the vast majority of pieces

> > considered

> > > " classical " fall into the " verse/chorus " form - virtually all

Madrigals

> > are

> > > 3 or 4 verses, usually repeated with no more than one key change at

> most.

> > > Part Songs tend to be a bit more imaginative, with maybe a change into

a

> > > minor key part way through. Lullabies are usually relatively short

> pieces

> > > repeated several times. Vocal ensemble pieces are usually verse/chorus

> > > structure. Even within symphonies and concertos you will usually find

> > > several " songs " which have oft repeated phrases - it is only when you

> take

> > > the whole work in its entirity that there is a progression of form

> within

> > > large orchestral / choral works.

> > >

> > > Basically, you are comparing the classical world's equivalent of

concept

> > > albums with an individual prog metal song. What you are comparing is

> > > something uneven. You mentioned the fact you like Scenes because of

the

> > > overall connection between the pieces - yet this is present on all DT

> > > albums. It is more obvious on Scenes because it has one story line

> within

> > > the lyrics, whereas the other albums tend to be a collection of songs

> > about

> > > different topics, but there is a musical theme running throughout, as

is

> > > fairly common with prog metal albums.

> > >

> > > > And more than that, often not merely use these techniques but play

> with

> > > > them, confounding your expectations, breaking rules they have

> > established,

> > > > drawing themes out from earlier themes.

> > >

> > > So, you wouldn't consider having one instrument playing in 3-4 and

> another

> > > in 4-4 to be " breaking established rules " ? Or having the ocassional

13-8

> > bar

> > > thrown into a song to be " confounding expectations " ? You wouldn't

> consider

> > > Learning To Live to draw themes from the rest of IAW? Or SFAM

expanding

> > > considerably on the whole of IAW? I wonder how you would react to some

> of

> > my

> > > stuff (I *love* breaking rules) - not only do I have points where 5

> > > instruments are all playing against each other in different time

> > signatures,

> > > I also have bars which actually don't fit into the concept of a whole

> > number

> > > of beats to a bar (i.e. I have some bars in 4 and 2 thirds/4 - and I

> still

> > > haven't found a way of getting my music-score programme to accept

> that) -

> > > and my influence for doing this sort of thing is much more prog than

> > > classical.

> > >

> > > In my experience, classical musicians usually get a rather glazed look

> in

> > > their eyes when something as " unexpected " as a 5-4 time signature

hones

> > into

> > > view - some even let their upper lips quiver if you watch closely

> enough.

> > If

> > > " breaking rules " and " confounding expectations " were so common in

> > classical,

> > > then classical musicians would relish them - as do prog musicians.

> > >

> > > > Yea, well, if they'd have spelt it right in the first place...!

> > >

> > > LOL - they are American :-)

> > >

> > > > This is something I have no experience of, so cannot really comment.

> But

> > > > that said (says he, about to comment), I do know that the complexity

> of

> > > form

> > > > doesn't really have much to do with how easy it is to transpose into

a

> > > > different arrangement. The genius is in the creation of the form in

> the

> > > > first place. I can study Bach, and I can even follow some of his

> strands

> > > of

> > > > thought. But not in a thousand years could I ever come up with music

> > even

> > > > remotely as complex. In the same way, I can take a great folk melody

> and

> > > > then add a harmonic structure, counter-melody, etc. But I couldn't

> have

> > > > written the melody in the first place.

> > >

> > > I think that every music writer is different. I have some pieces that

I

> am

> > > very proud of - they aren't anything like many of the " great "

composers,

> > and

> > > they have some similarities with others. But I always think it's a big

> > > mistake to try to make my music sound like other composers - I'd

rather

> be

> > > myself - that way it is my emotion and passion that comes out :-)

> > >

> > > BB

> > > Peter

> > >

> > >

> > > ---

> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To send an email to -

> > >

> > >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...