(western) classical music discussion

[Alex K]

I have an opinion about that, tomorrow...

[Minimalist]

Back.

First, the modern piece of shit was some atrocity called "Finding Rothko."  "Rothko" is some modern painter.  To drive the point home they flashed samples of his work that supposedly "inspired" the music.  All I can say about the paintings is that Rothko seems like an untalented 3 year old who found the finger paint.  The music was worse.  Rothko should be killed not found.

Following that was the Bruch Violin Concerto.  Now, the bar for the evening had been set low by the first piece and Bruch easily cleared it.  The violinist was superb.  The first movement was very good, the second somewhat pedestrian but the third really made up for that Finding Rothko shit.

The Mahler concluded the evening and brought down the house.

[bennyboy]

Perhaps this is fodder for a separate thread, but there have been few regular participants here so I'll just float the idea.

Is it simply instrumentation that makes a piece of music 'classical'? In another thread somebody rightly made fun of the metal/classical connection. I've been critical in other threads of how the 'classically' trained street cred CV line is often overused and mostly untrue.

If not instrumentation, why isn't Rime of the Ancient Mariner considered classical? I'm in no way politicking here, just soliciting opinion.

For those unfamiliar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7zk4as9kzA

There is only one thing that can make a form truly classical: it is founded in the philosophical ideas and formal leanings of the Greeks.  You can see an alternating between Dionysian and Apollonian influences from the Middle Ages up to the early 20th century, and those in which the Apollonian was stronger can be considered classical.

The Rennaisance refers to a rebirth of Greek ideals.  Then the Baroque took over, with much more emphasis on passion, on secular expression and nature.  Then classical, and back to more rigid forms and generally a more conservative style.  And then. . . the Romantics, literally an expression of the passions of the Romans (as contrasted with the Greeks).


But this isn't what people mean when they say metal is rooted in classical music.  They are talking about a variety of techniques drawn from a variety the Western art periods:
-use of exotic scale modes (specifically the Phyrgian flat-2 and flat-7) (Renaissance)
-a high level of instrumental virtuosity (Baroque and Romantic)
-heavy use of repeated melodic forms as the artist moves through many keys (Classical/Romantic)
-solos over the 5th (i.e. the pedal tone that gives the long solos near the end of classical pieces) (Classical/Romantic)
-in some bands, an explicit borrowing or copying of forms used in classical music (All)
-in some bands, operatic tendencies: dark lyrics which tell a story-- sometimes taken from Revelations, poetry, etc. (Baroque/Classical)
-the worshipful attitude that almost all metal musicians have toward symphonic composers (All)
-a fascination with pagan and magical themes (Classical/Late Romantic)

[Minimalist]

When I speak of "classical" I generally mean stuff written between 1750-1800.  

[Alex K]

Great that you had fun after all!
I have to give Bruch another listen then!

When I speak of "classical" I generally mean stuff written between 1750-1800.  

So, basically as opposed to baroque and romanticism. There's also the more colloquial use basically referring to "western art music". In German we have the old distinction between E- and U-Music (E=earnest, U=Unterhaltung, i.eentertainment.)
These categories were hotly debated and are often not well-defined any more.

[Longhorn]

First, the modern piece of shit was some atrocity called "Finding Rothko."  "Rothko" is some modern painter.  To drive the point home they flashed samples of his work that supposedly "inspired" the music.  All I can say about the paintings is that Rothko seems like an untalented 3 year old who found the finger paint.  The music was worse.  Rothko should be killed not found.

Yuck, Rothko
That fucker gets on my nerves so much...he paints shitty, simplistic, boring stuff and gets mad bucks for that crap, like 80 milion for his 'best' piece

I know it's opinion and it's all subjective, but holy fucking shit that guy brings nothing to the table a 7 yo couldn't and gets cash and recognition....modern 'art', I tell ya...

/rant

[Alex K]

Ah, those canvases with two colors on it. Not surprising that the music based on it sucked, too, then.

[Longhorn]

Ah, those canvases with two colors on it. Not surprising that the music based on it sucked, too, then.

Don't let me derail this thread, I could bitch like this for pages

Ok, there are a couple of his paintings I get - for real. But this?!

---

---

Bitch please. It's not even ugly, it's just what a 4 yo would do

I could start a whole thread on him like this

[Pyrrho]

Minimalist, maybe it will please you to know that Rothko is dead. He has been dead for more than 40 years. You might be able to find his grave and go dance and spit on it.

[Minimalist]

It does help a little. Thanks.