Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi John > 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? Most have a musical " theme " running through them, even if the words of the songs do not have a conceptual link. > 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. I have to disagree. > 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). Hmmm - a two minute prog song - that would certainly be a novelty. Perhaps you'd care to share which 2 minute songs you're talking about. > 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. I can't think of any way to respond to this other than that you are completely wrong. If this is your view of SFAM, then I don't really think you know the album as well as you think you do. > 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. It's been a long time since I've done any Brahms, but I am familiar with Bach and Mozart, having performed both frequently, and recently. These composers do not maintain any form of complexity in their works at all - they follow pretty much all the standard " rules " of musical theory, and create pieces which, while very effective (and possibly some of the most entertaining music ever written) could not be described as complex in any sense of the word. > 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. And yet, professional musicians find them so hard to cope with. Just recently, I remember getting incredibly bored sitting in the choir stalls while Brian Kay struggled for about half an hour to get the orchestra to play the 5/4 bar correctly. > 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. Again, I fear that you are simply making things up about classical to try to prove your point. I am fairly conversant with classical music, and I understand it far better than you give me credit for. 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi John > 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. Standard prog practice. To me, the " ultimate " example of this is Chance by Savatage. > 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. Here's my favourite " what-if " type argument. What-if Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. had lived in our own era rather than one dominated by classical music? I wonder if they'd have still been classical composers, or if they'd have chosen a different outlet for their talents. > 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. During most rock concerts (prog or otherwise) each of the musicians get a chance to show off in a solo atmosphere - many choose to extemporise on classical pieces. I think my favourite was John Petrucci doing the Flight of the Bumblebee with a subtle segue into the theme from Coronation Street and ending with the William Tell Overture. Of course, all done with a variety of different progressions away from the main themes. 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 It could be either - although I tend to go with the other hand. People don't usually have just one talent, and may be able to pursue some of them in only a minor way i.e. as a hobby. Jo > 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 - > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 John It's always good to discuss different points of view, and to stick-up for things you like. Jo > 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. --- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 John > 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'. I know what you mean. Savatage do that in one (maybe more) of their albums, and you don't realise beforehand that they are going to conect up later. > 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. It would be very interesting to consider the 'what ifs though'. 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2003 Hi Peter, > 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. Possibly. It is rather hard for me to tell what I'm missing! I do know, though, that 'classical' analysis is a tool which can be used to dissect any form, not just classical. Rather in the same way a 'classical' training/practise regime can help play in other genres...I remember (smugly!) that when I first started playing folk, the folkies were impressed that I could play and memorise folk tunes pretty much on sight. The reason being that they consisted for the most of scales, arpeggios and simple modulations, which I'd been practising for fifteen years or so already. Mind you, I've also heard classical/jazz musicians say the opposite, that classical training hampered their jazz style. > 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. No. I actually used the wrong term - I should have said modern rather than contemporary, as the two are no longer the same. I'm not a fan of anything pantonal or serialist, and not much of a fan of minimalism. In fact, most of my favourite contemporary music seems to be in films - the scores of Ghormenghast, Harry Potter, and of course Lord of the Rings. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2003 Hi John > I've also heard classical/jazz musicians say the opposite, that > classical training hampered their jazz style. I think a lot depends on the sort of person and the style of music. I remember once playing in a ragtime group with a classically trained pianist - it was terrible - he was a good pianist, but if he ever made a mistake, he stopped playing and went back to correct it! I always astonish everyone I sing with, because I refuse to sing from music - even major works. They can't understand how I can remember it all, but to me it's the way that music is meant to be! > No. I actually used the wrong term - I should have said modern rather than > contemporary, as the two are no longer the same. I'm not a fan of anything > pantonal or serialist, and not much of a fan of minimalism. In fact, most of > my favourite contemporary music seems to be in films - the scores of > Ghormenghast, Harry Potter, and of course Lord of the Rings. Ah yes - I definitely like that sort of music. You should check out some Rhapsody - they describe themselves as " Epic Hollywood metal " , basically their major influences are John Williams (as in Star Wars soundtrack) and Iron Maiden! Very interesting music. 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2003 John I enjoy this music too, especially Lord of the Rings. Jo > In fact, most of > my favourite contemporary music seems to be in films - the scores of > Ghormenghast, Harry Potter, and of course Lord of the Rings. --- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
