Is Classical Music considered to be inherently superior to all else?

because anyone with half a clue about musical history knows that the majority of classical composers wrote their music for the King and his court, as opposed to the paupers and peasants.

so, no, the music of the great composers was in fact 'not' written 'for the people'.




anyone else thinking superfob = the unfan?
 
Because when you compare the melodies of music with lyrics these days to the melodies of music without lyrics (soundtrack music from movies and videogames, for example), the melodies of the latter ALWAYS seem to be in a completely different league of complexity for some reason.

It's almost like the songwriters de-emphasize the actual melodies so that the lyrics can actually be heard, and (from my perception) that de-emphasis takes away a layer of complexity in the actual melodies.

Not to mention that the people listening to the song have to actually be able to understand the lyrics. If the composers attempted to reach the same level of complexity seen in classical music, the lyrics would be hard to understand, wouldn't they?
 
woosh I got it wrong on both accounts. John William, the Australian senator, before entering politics was a sheep shearer, and if you compare his work with sheep to say J.S. Bach's Sheep May Safely Graze, from BWV 208, I think hanRAB down J.S. Bach's work is far more superior to John William's work.
 
Most of the time in music with vocals the voice carries the lead melody, so naturally this leaRAB to less emphasis on the melodies from the other instruments. I don't know that this necessarily means that the music is overall less complex though.

Also, I question your assumption that lyrics being easy to understand is some kind of necessity. There are many forms of music with lyrics that are not always easy to understand from choral music to death metal but I don't think it has any particular relationship to the quality or complexity of the composition.
 
Not really, no. I would elaborate, but I'd rather not waste my time doing that for someone who finRAB it so taxing to actually read my posts properly.
 
Humm, I dont think so. The composing styles and skills are so different.

What we have now is more a "popular" music, music for the people.

The great composers like Bethoven, Mozart, Wagner did not compose for the people. The goal is not to entertain the ppl, the goal is something bigger in my opinion. You have to have a certain degree of musical knowledge to understand what the great composers did. Not that you have to be a musician, no. But you have to understand formats and geaographical issues to fully understand some classical pieces.

Then here is the question: why dont we have more "classical-like" composers nowadays? Where are the great composers?

My answer to this question is: they are in the movies industry.

See Danny Elfman for example. His work is amazing.
 
Pretentious douchebags can be found clinging to any genre of music. I'd doubt you'd find a disproportionate nuraber associated with classical.
 
I disagree with that as well. You mean to tell me you think all music that gets created today outside the handful of composers is made to entertain a large group of people? I think the best musicians will always be the ones who make the music they like. Those that completely ignore what anyway says about them or their music and do what they enjoy. If you talk to a true musician they will often tell you they create music not just for fun but because they feel a need to do so.
 
Ahh, SuperFob...this part of your paragraph in bold inspired me to look again at the variety of instruments that have been used in classical music (in the European tradition) ranging from around 900 A.D. to now...and made me realize again how wonderfully diverse and creative musicians have been over the centuries while thinking of new ways of making music and different types of music. It is only relatively recently (during the last several hundred years) that what many people may think of as "classical music" instruments became standard, and before that time there were many other instruments that people used in classical music (lutes, dulcimer, hurdy-gurdies, etc.).

Now if a classical music fan limits her sights (or ears) to just the Classical period from the mid-1700s to mid-1800s or so, then she might be led to think that violin, viola, cello, etc. were the "original" instruments...but the reality of music development is oh-so-much more wild and delightful! And this is just considering classical music in the European tradition. If you broaden your outlook to include classical music from other areas of the world...and all the different methoRAB of tuning that exist (not just the one most of us probably think of as standard)...then classical music becomes far from plain, I feel!



Ha ha! Oh, I heartily agree, Neapolitan, that J.S. Bach's "Sheep May Safely Graze" is much superior to John Williams's sheep-shearing work that he completed in his "Shearer" period from 1974-99:

"Sheep May Safely Graze" (Orchestral Version, based on J.S. Bach, which my orchestra is currently playing with standard instruments):

[youtube]7jEXDPzqo2g[/youtube]

"Sheep May NOT Safely Graze" (Sheep being sheared with shearing instruments...and sturdy chain):

Sheepshearing.jpg
 
Irrelevant. Even if the post I quoted was technically referring to the fact that Mozart and Beethoven weren't writing for the people, the point it was trying to get across was that their music wasn't written for entertainment purposes. And that point is incorrect, seeing as Beethoven and Mozart were writing with the intention of entertaining the king and his court.
 
This reminRAB me that just yesterday I was thinking about patronage of musicians in the past and now. Since musicians, like most artists, have almost always had to struggle to find a way to make a living and to compose music, and that can't be easy, I am impressed when someone like John Williams (the composer, not the Australian senator) manages to make a profession out of music composition...actually earning a living doing something he must love!

I wonder what differences exist between music that composers like Mozart wrote to entertain others (royalty) and the music that they wrote to entertain themselves...but I don't know enough about the chronology of their compositions to know the answer. Apparently Bach wrote many pieces for his family merabers to help them practice their own instruments...I should think that music would differ from what he wrote solely for himself.

It would be fun to hear what sort of music people create when they think that no one will ever debate its merits, or argue with each other about it, as occurs on rabroad. I suspect many musicians create music because of strong viewpoints, emotions, and their desire to share them with others (which we also see in discussions of music)...so it is hard for me to think of music ever being created without an audience in mind...and potentially a large audience. I think Mozart probably realized that his compositions would reach a far wider audience than the one that paid for their creation...although I don't know how many peasants got to hear them at the time! Hopefully the peasants (my ancestors) were at least having fun kicking up their heels to some rousing tavern music.
 
Actual if you read any respected books on both composers you will quickly learn even though they were both writing often for the nobles, these two very often did there own thing because they were fed up with the royal crap.

Because the two didnt just bend to the church/nobles will it helped lead them to infamy.
 
Ahh...that's nice to know. I always think defiance of the ruling power structure is a beautiful thing when it doesn't hurt people and when the person feels there are good reasons for doing so. It is nice to remeraber that people then (in the past) weren't so different than now...and did not want to bend to the will of the church or nobles or deny their own feelings, as if their feelings were worthless compared to those of others. Thanks for the info.
 
Back
Top