arete1952

If I enjoy an artist, like the Beatles, and someone asks for a suggestion as to their best work, I can form a reccomendation of their best pieces over a wide range - Norwegian Wood, Eleanor Rigby, A Day in the Life, I am the Walrus, Hey Jude, Blackbird, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Helter Skelter, Something, Here Comes the Sun. If you are going to like the Beatles, you are going to like at least a few of those songs immensely.

Not that anyone asked me so I hope no one minds if I sound off...

I like the Beatles very much but do not enjoy any of the above songs 'immensely'. In fact I intensely dislike 'I am the Walrus' and 'Helter Skelter' and would never dream of recommending them. 'Hey Jude' bores me silly...I can't say I dislike it as much as the previous two but if I never heard it again that would be fine with me. The others are fine songs to varying degrees but not among my favorites. But then I am something of anomaly as a Beatles fan in that I like the early and middle stuff best...there is not much post-Revolver (Parlophone LP not Capitol) that I really like. I'll take 'Anytime At All', 'No Reply', 'I'll Be Back', 'Things We Said Today' and 'It's Only Love' (among many others from the 1962-66 era) over any of the above. (Yes, I know Norwegian Wood is from that afore-mentioned era...and is, of course, my favorite among the above.)

The best Beatles album is 'Rubber Soul' (Parlophone) with 'A Hard Day's Night' (again Parlophone...always Parlophone ) a very close second.

Just my take and taste on these things....no 'intense offended' (as Archie Bunker used to say) to anyone.

Best,

Ken

btw - If you want to listen to Britney, go right ahead. Just don't blame me for it. I'm indifferent to her work, but I won't hold it against you if you are not.

Michael

Michael:

I have no interest in Spears' music...or Zappa's for that matter...my tastes run more along the lines of Palestrina, Monterverdi, Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Stravinsky, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Corigliano, Rouse...as I say in my Personal Statement: "Life is too short to spend time listening to bad music."

Ken

All I can say is look at his public and the millions of records they bought and regularly consume. They happen to think there is plenty worth listening to.

Michael

Greetings Michael:

So I guess I should be listening to Ms. Spears and others of her ilk since her/their numbers are in the multi-millions(?) Do you really want to use a variant on the old chestnut 'Forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong' as an argument in defense of Zappa?

Best regards,

Ken

It was Frank giving Aaron Copeland a good old down home backyard ass whuppin'.

1. The correct spelling is 'Copland'.

2. Composition-wise, Copland was light years above and beyond Zappa.

Best regards,

Ken

In response to various posts regarding how we may value some music based on the result of associations, I believe the 'association' factor is very important. I listen primarily (95% of my listening time) to Western art music (aka classical music). The popular music to which I listen is from the 60s and early 70s, i.e, music I grew up with.

What is essential, I think, is for people to be objective and realize the vast qualitative difference between the art and popular music and, if one enjoys popular music, accept it for what it is: entertainment not art. It is the musical equivalent of fast food: at its best it can be tasty and enjoyable to consume, but there really isn't much, if any, 'nutritional' value there.

What I get out of the popular music I like is nostalgia and fun...it reminds me of a certain time in my life, etc. On a purely musical level it has nothing to offer. When I want to hear MUSIC I listen to Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Stravinsky, etc.

Best to all,

Ken

I read the article that was linked to in this thread's introductory post.

Yawn.

I was hoping to hear samples of Mickie Willis's (the author of the article) original music so that I could get an idea of the type of music that intelligent people should appreciate, but apparently his online samples are no longer available. If anyone finds an active link to free downloads of his work, please post it.

I'll be blunt. Whenever I've encountered opinions like Willis's in the past, they've come from music composition teachers, students and other academic types who are generally quite mediocre when it comes to creating music, and they seem to resent the fact that others, who haven't studied proper music theory for decades, can spontaneously create music that is much more expressive and powerful than anything that the mediocre snobs could create in a lifetime. I suspect that Willis is probably such a musical mediocrity.

J

So the validity of Willis' assertions is determined by his abilities as a composer?

Argumentum ad hominem...and on an Objectivist forum yet.

BIG YAWN...

Best,

Ken

I believe that Andrew Lloyd Webber, on stage, and John Williams, on screen, are among those doing work comparable to the best classical composers, and that their work will endure in the same way, whether attached to their films and plays or performed on their own.

I respectfully disagree...you really think that their music is comparable to that of Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, etc.????

I also believe that without the likes of Webber and Williams keeping its tropes before the public, classical orchestral music would have withered on the economic vine at least 40 years ago. Even now, its state is precarious.

Their music has very little presence on the programs of major and not-so-major orchestras in this country and around the world...their impact on classical orchestral music is practically non-existent.

I do agree with your statement about the precarious state of classical music though.

Am I the only one on this forum who hates all pop music and rock music?

I think that at least in this regard I'd have had an ally in Rand.

Dragonfly:

Western art music (aka classical music) is my great passion...it is incomparable music--the greatest music ever created. That doesn't prevent me from enjoying some pop and rock (some, not much). What is essential, I think, is to OBJECTIVE and realize the vast qualitative difference between the art and popular music and, if one enjoys popular music, accept it for what it is: entertainment not art. It is the musical equivalent of fast food: at its best it can be tasty and enjoyable to consume, but there really isn't much, if any, 'nutritional' value there.

What I get out of the popular music I like is nostalgia and fun...it reminds me of a certain time in my life, etc. On a purely musical level it has nothing to offer. When I want to hear MUSIC I listen to Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Stravinsky, etc.

I can, however, understand someone not liking pop/rock music at all...so you may consider my a 'semi-ally'.

Best,

Ken

There is an objective standard for grammatical correctness of spoken and written language.

What are these standards? Who created them? How were they created?

Greetings all:

Some months ago, over on the Objectivism Online site, I posted this link:

http://www.unconservatory.org/articles/smartpeople.html

which generated some very interesting and, ahem, passionate responses.

Best to all,

Ken

There's a thread over on ObjectivismOnline entitled "Why do Smart People Like Such Terrible Music" or something to that effect. It seems you can never predict the type of music someone will like by examining their philosophy. It's much more of a personality thing.

I will have to 'fess up...it was I who posted that "Why Do So Many Smart People Listen to Such Terrible Music?" link over on ObjectivismOnline. And I must say it caused quite a brouhaha. For those that are interested here is the link: http://www.unconservatory.org/articles/smartpeople.html

And, yes, on the main point of the article, I agree with author completely.

Best to all,

Ken

Impossible for me to select one, but some of my favorites are:

Machaut: Notre Dame Mass

Ockeghem: Missa Mi-mi

Byrd: Mass for Three Voices

Monteverdi: L’Orfeo, Beatus vir

J.S. Bach: Art of the Fugue, Brandenburg Concertos

Haydn: Symphonies 22,46,60,63,77; Cello Concertos in C and D

Beethoven: Symphonies; Piano Concertos #4 and #5; late string quartets, Violin Concerto

Schubert: Symphonies #5 and #9, String Quintet in C; Rosemunde

Mendelssohn: Octet for Strings, incidental music for Midsummer's Night Dream

Dvorak: Slavonic Dances, Opp. 46 and 72; Legends, Op.59; Serenade for Strings

Vaughan Williams: Lark Ascending, Tallis Variations, Five Variations on Dives and Lazarus

Copland: Quiet City, Our Town

Also in regard to the "what do you mean by classical" discussion happening here...

It depends what you mean by "classical". In everyday language, it refers to music written for orchestra and written in a "serious" (i.e. non-popular) format.

No offense, but this is not accurate. As we know, the term "classical" has numerous meanings. The correct musicological term for what the general public calls classical music is Western art music with classical being the period of Western art music from 1750 to 1825...the 6 main periods of Western art music:

Medieval: c. 500 A.D. to 1450

Renaissance: 1450 to 1600

Baroque: 1600 to 1750

Classical: 1750 to 1825

Romantic: 1825 to 1900

Modern: 1900 to present (there are other terms which have been used for this period...this is a really general way to refer to this...and there are numerous styles within this period)

Also, Western art music is not limited to music written for orchestra.

Best to all,

Ken