Thread: Classical Music vs. Modern Music

Classical music NEVER sounds good. Modern music sounds good for about a month, longer if it is a good song. This is probably because I was born in the 90s though...

Actually plenty of young people listen to music of the 40s around surrounding decades. I went to a Jazz festival a couple of years ago to see McCoy Tyner and Pharoah Sanders play, both of who played with John Coltrane in the 50s. There were stacks of young folk there. I know people my own age who love Sinatra and his contemporaries.

But anyway, i think the sheer profile of classical music has something to do with it. I mean think about it, apart from folk music, every other form of music has only existed for about 100 years. Classical music has been composed for hundreds. It's the music of the west's past. It's not something that's going to be let go of.

I'm going to assume that by "classical" music you mean anything done by orchestra, band, piano, organ, chamber groups, etc. that doesn't have a "modern" feel to it, instead of the classical period of music(mid 1700s to early 1800s).

Actually, I'm a fan of both types of music(if it can be reduced to 2 types). Although, I tend to listen to more "modern" music(although some of it being very classically influenced). Sometimes I just like to put on some Debussy or Brahms and chill out though.

I think Ardent has it right. It is the music of the west's past is a great way of putting it. That being said, I love when modern and classical are mixed, such as in symphonic metal. It is awsome to me.

Originally Posted by Ardent Lost

Actually plenty of young people listen to music of the 40s around surrounding decades. I went to a Jazz festival a couple of years ago to see McCoy Tyner and Pharoah Sanders play, both of who played with John Coltrane in the 50s. There were stacks of young folk there. I know people my own age who love Sinatra and his contemporaries.

But the whole point is you don't listen to Sinatra all the time. Just because you visit Africa and like the music doesn't mean you get into it.

I think it has something to do with the work that was put into it. I don't think it would have been so prolific if the artists did not put so much time into it, even to the point of becoming riddles. Johann Sebastian Bach actually composed fugues purely as musical puzzles: He took one melody and inverted it, scaled it, layered it, put it in canons and so forth, and then had his student decipher the composition by un-inverting, scaling, layering etc. until it was just one melody being played by many instruments and voices.

Also, the sheer amount of work produced means it is virtually inexhaustible as a musical resource. Also, playing one of these compositions is more of a team effort than anything in music.

But here I pose another question: Even if the average middle-high schooler doesn’t like classical music (A general assumption) he still puts up with a lot of it in the movies. Granted this isn’t “classical” music in the true sense, but I doubt it would be all that distinguishable to him. Anyway, at the end of almost every trilogy, there is a cantata composed for the movie, or at least a choral piece, and everyone eats it up, whether they like classical or no. Thoughts on this?

Classical music has that timeless quality about it because it's complex and has depth. Back then you had to be well-educated to produce fine music. Now any bimbo with an acting or modeling career can become a "musician".

Originally Posted by MrDoom

Classical music has that timeless quality about it because it's complex and has depth. Back then you had to be well-educated to produce fine music. Now any bimbo with an acting or modeling career can become a "musician".

Originally Posted by Vance

But the whole point is you don't listen to Sinatra all the time. Just because you visit Africa and like the music doesn't mean you get into it.

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. People do listen to Sinatra all the time. There are young people everywhere who listen to nothing but Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. Anyway, it's not important, i'm just sticking up for Jazz

Originally Posted by Ardent Lost

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. People do listen to Sinatra all the time. There are young people everywhere who listen to nothing but Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. Anyway, it's not important, i'm just sticking up for Jazz

I know, but compared to the amount of people who listen to moden music and classical... Or at least have an appreciation for classical...

Originally Posted by Ardent Lost

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. People do listen to Sinatra all the time. There are young people everywhere who listen to nothing but Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. Anyway, it's not important, i'm just sticking up for Jazz

what do you consider young, i don't think people in their 60's and 70's qualify as young anymore.

Originally Posted by Ickarus

what do you consider young, i don't think people in their 60's and 70's qualify as young anymore.

Well i'm 22 and i listen to that music. Not solely that music, but i listen to as much jazz as i do classical. And there are plenty more people my age who listen to jazz almost exclusively.

my musical tastes span like 500 years or something. Baroque-21st century

Depends what music you speak of, as to whether its "art"

Solja Boy is not art. Dream Theater is art. 50 Cent is not art. Bach is.

I will now begin a rant...having studied music for the majority of my life.

Music?

The loosest definition of music...is organised sounds. Tap your finger on your desk. Thats music.

Art?

But "art" is expressive. Hate. Love. Joy. Fear. all emotions. Artistic music will express that. A guitar solo from Jimi Hendrix for example. Crammed full of expression....its art. You can hear every note being phrased, even though he wasnt the best of technique.

Ability to convey feeling, through organising sounds = artistic music. I dont care if the music is mainstream....or commericial...if its performed with expression = artistic.


Did you ever hear anyone say..."oh man, I just got a mega shiver up my spine when eminem started talking about booty"

Popular Music Today

It seems todays charts are dominated by "RnB" these days. This is because somehow every one in the world was convinced they were much more hardcore than they actually are. What did RnB take over? Pop Groups

Ahh...the groups everyone loves to hate. Nsync would be my favourite. RnB convinced the world pop was "gay" in a weird twist of fate..RnB became Pop.

But my musical listening convinces me this "new pop" is devoid of ALL expression and art. Boy bands had performance skills to convey feeling with their performances WHILST being commercial. RnB is sold on image. Thats right...im a fan of boybands. Flame me. you wont win.

Classical Vs Modern

It all depends on the music style and performer. A good performer will be the different between music and art.

However, the only music EVER I would say CANNOT be artistic is popular rap/rnb.
Why?
-its message-less
-based on image and attitude.

(I do find some rap and rnb expressionate..but the type I would is not "popular")

end rant..


(WOOOOOH, I got off topic)