Re: Classical for Beginners - Page 3

Are you sang that contemporary classical composers aren't classically trained?

I'm not as up on music education as I am art, but I'd bet it is similar.

Picasso was trained in an atelier setting. The master/student relationship and the sorts of exercises he was given were similar to the way Rembrandt and Michaelangelo learned. There was probably a lot more similarities between how and what Picasso learned and how and what Micaelangelo learned than there is between Picasso's training and the curriculum and teaching style in most modern universities. I bet the same could be said of the similarity between the way Stravinsky learned from Rimsky Korsakov and university musical education.

I could go into detail about how art is taught now in the schools, but I bet you already know all that from current music education.

You don't need the atelier to have Picasso's skills, all you need to do is prioritize drawing/draughtsmanship.   It's not the form, it's the content.

 

John Adams, like him or not, seems to have a fairly solid background in traditional composition.

It's not the form, it's the content

That is PRECISELY the difference between classical art and modern art, and that concept is the reason that so many creative arts have degenerated to such a degree.

Ideas plus skill equal expression. Ideas alone are what gave us giant balloon dogs and porcelain figures of Michael Jackson and his monkey. The idea that everyone is creative and the idea is all that matters is hippie thinking and would have gotten Rembrandt's ears boxed if he dared to utter it in the presence of his master.

Well, you know I'm not disagreeing with you about the degradation of skills, right?

 

You can still teach people to attain a high level of skill, but the fact is those skills, that particular type of discipline has no value in the culture of the US right now. (Could be true in other places, but I'm a USian)

It's amazing that our culture expends so much money and energy on crap. The world is upside down in a lot of ways. It would be good to get back to the building a better mousetrap mentality instead of the cheat it and destroy all competition mentality.

No offense intended but it's apparent that you're coming at classical music from a different angle than I am. Your mention of conductors implies that you do a lot of listening to recorded albums (or going to concerts, or both). In contrast, I think most musicians (like me - I'm a violinist) come at classical from their experience actually playing classical pieces and thus tend to have their own idea of an interpretation, and are hence able to better conceptually separate a conductor from the music. When I think of a certain classical work, in my mind I hear the notes and how I'd play the 1st violin section. I don't think of a certain recording by a conductor & orchestra and how they sound. And when I listen to a classical work on CD, I'm not listening to the conductor/orchestra performance per se, but moreso the orchestra's technical ability & virtuosity (particularly the violin sections) and the actual notes. Not that it takes away any enjoyment for me though.

 

For newbies to classical, I definitely agree with your other point (reiterated in posts #21 and #24). Classical music is huge, spanning a few hundred years, and each time period has a distinct style. There's a huge amount of music to pick from. I think I'd recommend sampling a few works from each time period, and it can be done totally free too (CDs from the library, FM radio, or streaming over the Internet). Once someone knows what they like and don't like, it's better to ask that "What should I listen to next?" question.
 

If you mean "modern music" as in the last/current era, that's kind of nebulous. Not sure I understand the question. Info on the actual year spans of the time periods can also be researched online. I also have no knowledge of Renaissance music.

 

I haven't listened to The Rite of Spring in a while but Stravinsky is usually credited as being one of the pioneers of the Modern era which is why I put him there.

Modern orchestras and modern conductors tend to sound very similar. They are interested in creating a "proper" performance. Most of them who record regularly have achieved a high level of technical accuracy. But the interpretations can be very generic. Sometimes this can lead to boring performances.

Older conductors had much more of an impact than modern ones do. There is no mistaking a Stokowski/Philadelphia, Toscanini/Symphony of the Air, Bernstein/NYPO, or Walter/Vienna P O performance. They phrase differently, bow differently, and even tune their instruments differently. None of them are any more correct than the others. They are interpreting the notes on the paper to bring the score to life.

If accuracy was all that mattered, a machine could play the music and we wouldn't need performers. But that's not the way most people listen to music. We listen for emotional expression. That takes a good conductor. Thankfully, there still are a few.

I heard a story that relates to this... I'm not sure of the specifics, but as I remember it, a violinist for the New York Philharmonic was in rehearsal with a guest composer. His eyes were on the score, and all of a sudden the sound of the music totally changed. He looked up to see what happened, and he realized that Toscanini had just walked in the door at the back of the auditorium. Some conductors have that power and it's the point where music making crosses the line into magic.