Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2003 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 > - > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2003 > 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 >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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 > 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 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 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 - > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 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 - > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 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 - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 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 - > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
