Why Did It Mean To You?

[alexander]

Ok, i would like to outline what this thread shall be about.

 

I don't consider myself to be a guru in anything, that is especially true with music, classical music. I find that i really enjoy classical (yes, most 22 year-olds dont, i, however, do, but continue reading)

 

It is a common perception that the younger generation does not like classical music, and while you certainly would think so, even looking at my play lists, i think i understand why young generation does not usually enjoy/appreciate the genre. It's too meaningful, my generation does not understand music, it's, at most, about lyrics, so when confronted with a piece that has a lot of meaning, we get lost, when confronted with a piece that is just a nice, light, really easy to take piece, we don't think we get enough, i commonly catch myself thinking "where's the beat" but recently i have come to a great understanding, or so at least i hope, about classical music, and changing to think about the music as a musician, it certainly makes it a lot more worth while to listen to it, and you know what, i have restarted listening to classical, now, not a day goes by well, rather night, that i dont listen to something, i will discuss my recent trend in a little bit, but i think i have an idea and this is more to make this thread both inform and ask users to share their experiences in classical music.

 

Ok, so what do i want to talk about, i want to present a piece of classical music, and i know there are many classical composers, and genres, but let's stick to pre 1980's composers and pieces, i dont want to narrow all that to any particular area globally, lets stick to pieces that are not light, other then that, if you listened to a piece that changed your understanding of things, if you have a piece to recommend or have a piece that you could not understand and would like to try to understand, this is the place to ask about it.

 

I will start, as always, with some random piece of music, to give you an idea of the format of the posts.

 

The day before yesterday I started on my slip down Shostakovitch lane, more i hear, the more interesting and influential it seems to be to me, personally, i find a lot of parallels in his music with my state of being, thus it seems to fit for the time being.

 

While he has a lot of great pieces, namely his Symphonies No. 5 and 10, 13, i will discuss a piece that is lighter, easier, but also very thoughtful and way dangerous to write.

 

Shostakovitch, Symphony No. 9

 

Shostakovitch started working on his 9th Symphony riight after WWII was over in the eastern world, troops returning home, it was a time of grandiose marches, symphonies that outlined the heroism and victory, symphonies that celebrated life. Shostakovitch wrote the first half of the development section in a week, about 10 minutes of music, and then, like it happens with some composers, stalled. 5 moths later he resumed his work on the piece, another week and the piece was done. What was planned to suit the general mood of the time, came out to be a call out to USSR at the time, so much so that it was banned by the party in 1948.

 

It's anything but patriotic, the composer has a unique way of combining notes to create sounds that while on one side sound happy, have a cynical feel to them, the grandiose splashes that are so typical of so much of his music are lined with second thoughts. Honestly knowing the history and the persecutions of the time, it was surprising that Shostakovitch was left alone and not declared to have anti communist intentions and punished like all the others, by either becoming a political prisoner in Siberia, or by being shot. (ofcourse you can disagree, these are how i felt about the piece)

 

It's not quite depressing, the sypmpony is rather lite, and is riddled with many sections with that are rather simple and lite, but, especially in later sections, even those are lined with notes that make you think back on them to figure out, was that playful, or was that a sarcastic laugh about something he found to be overwhelming at the time.

 

I think i enjoyed the piece because of that plain yet hidden two-faceness, that nongrandiose celebration yet cynical hits about the country at the time....

 

 

So, i will continue posting on other pieces of his work, as i said there are some really moving pieces like 5 and 10, especially 10, but i wanted to start lite, start with, and feel free to disagree with me, a good, rustic piece of classical music, and let's see where this takes us :doh:

 

Hope you guys both enjoy and participate :hihi:

[Tormod]

Interesting thread, Alexander. Classical music is too enshrouded in myths IMHO. Most of it does not have any deep thought in it. Look at how Bach worked - producing works day in and day out, creating an endless series of music for a wide variety of performances. Yet it still *sounds* profound (well, most of it). That lies mostly in the beauty of the music and requires a good performance.

 

I have never been a big fan of symphonies and classical opera etc. I find them to be insanely long and tedious. I fancy the short stuff, the arias and the etudes, the little gems among all the bulldozer opuses.

 

Yes, I have had my hangups on pieces like Mozart's Requiem and Bach's Mass in b minor. They are stunning pieces of work. Händels Messiah on the other hand, while beautiful, for some reason bores the living daylights out of me (and why do Americans always STAND during the Hallelujah choir).

 

I guess it is related to the fact that I play classical guitar, and thus tend to listen (and play) shorter stuff. I also play pop and rock music and when a piece grows longer than 5 minutes it is too long. Short makes my day.

 

Yet I have also sung in choirs and participated in operas and other productions. It's much more fun to *perform* that *listen*.

 

Prokofiev got it right with his Symphony #1. It's a masterpiece of simplicity, and last exactly as long as a symphony should. :)

 

That's what it means to me, anyway.

[freeztar]

Excellent thread!

 

For me, a composition is only viable when it moves. It must move through progressions, but also be moving.

 

The best example I can think of is "Bolero" by Ravel. It's an astonishingly simple piece, but the emotion it conveys is unmatched, imho.

 

Classical music is not unfavorable to my generation because of lack of lyrics. It's unfavorable because most people are never exposed to it. Also, classical music typically lacks the pop hooks that make more contemporary music favorable. It takes a bit of patience to fully appreciate classical music and I fear that most contemporary listeners bypass this. :)

 

YouTube - BOLERO-RAVEL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-4J5j74VPw

[alexander]

I find it interesting that you mention Requiem specifically, T, there are some interesting notes on that piece that I've actually had written somewhere, but here's the gist of them:

 

I find Requiem unlike any work that Mozart has done, it was his last piece, but it really does not quite sound like it is fully his work, it really sounds like there is a piece missing, or rather something there that is not pure, that is not Mozart; and reading into the history of the work, those thoughts come together. When Mozart died, the composition was very partly completed, the only part that was fully done was the openning, the rest, some of it was completed in the vocal part, every now and again some prominent solo bits were scribbled in, and the last movement had only 8 bars of it completed. Yet most people, most people that listen to some classical, will identify the composition by the Lacrimosa, only 8 bars of which were ever written by the master. Requiem is such an atypical Mozart composition, may be due to his progressing illness, though honestly, i think, because he didn't get to finish the piece, it just has that feel of Mozart, and something else you just can't put your finger on, but it's definitely there. It's like reading a translation of War and Piece, or better yet, Taras Bul'ba, while it's still a great novel, it lacks that grandiose language of the master that is only present in the language of the original, that's what i feel when i listen to Requiem.

 

By the way, the 9th Symphony i was talking about, above, is typically performed in 26 minutes, and that is a very short symphony...

[Tormod]

Mozart's Requiem is a masterpiece, and the speculative theories surrounding it is pretty pointless, but I guess some find it interesting. That he did not write all of it is a fact which doesn't have to be mysterious, and like many other artists pressed for time he took bits and pieces from others.

 

If you look at the Kyrie, for example, the melody is "borrowed" from Händel's Messiah (I forget which part, but it's goes "And he shall reign") note-for-note.

 

But I have worked with the Requiem quite a bit, and I have no problems hearing Mozart throughout the piece.

 

I think classical music is uninteresting to most people simply because they are not exposed to it. But sometimes an aria is used in a movie and *poof* tons of people rush out to buy "that song from that movie". Like the duet from the Magic Flute which is played in a brilliant scene in The Shawshank Redemption. :)

[alexander]

I think you misunderstood me, Tormod, Requiem is an outstanding piece of work, a masterpiece is, like with much of the classical classics works, really an understatement, think musical perfection. You can hear Mozart, but the work being his last, is, and do say if you disagree with me, unlike any other. He had a tough life, and it's not really reflected in his work, he always has happy, playful music that looks at the bright side of life, even though the events at the time could not have been farther from the truth. Requiem reflects on his other works, because if you were Franz Xavier, and were left with an incredibly frustrated piece of work that showed sorrow, and the pain that the master was in, how would you approach finishing that work and keeping it true to the master, true to Mozart. I very much think that you will add a Mozart tone to the composition, and yet seeing how it was outlined with the vocal sections and the brief bits of some prominent parts that gives one an idea of the development of the music piece, but i don't think that even Mozart himself wanted for this piece to be like his others, and that's why i describe it in the way that i did, it's just that it does not feel like his other work, it wasn't meant to, and he never completed it, which if he did, would have probably made it his greatest work known, i would say, with some probability, the perfect piece of music, perhaps one of or the first choice for thoughtful and emotional pieces by any classical enthusiast (but as it stands, there are a few i can think of that stand in the way as it stands today).

 

Today, I'm going to power through Mahler's 9th Symphony in D, so I'll either post a review late today or early tomorrow of how it felt (also i suggest that if you would like to discuss the piece, listen to it too, and if you would like to purchaise it, its $10 on itunes, but get the Berliner Philharmoniker (Berlin Philharmonic) performance of it, it does the piece proper justice) (search: "Mahler: Symphony No. 9")

 

Please note, i haven't listened to it yet, but it's a very hard piece to listen to, if you dont like hard pieces, don't buy it, you will probably not enjoy Mahler, many people dont, and somehow i will be at fault....

[freeztar]

itunes=bleh

 

Here's a free version of the first movement. I've never really been a fan of Mahler though.

 

YouTube - Mahler - 9th symphony - 1st movement (Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwnqeYjjGFQ

[alexander]

I'd honestly rather download it from itunes and pay for it, then listen to it on youtube, you get such a better quality sound, especially if you have gone to make an investment into a good set of head phones...

 

I mean AAC is no FLAC, but it is still very quality format with little loss.

 

As i said, Mahler well rather his third period of development in his 8'th 9'th and 10'th (unfinished) symphonies is a case of licorice, you either like him and can listen to him and appreciate/enjoy his work, or you dont, there's no "well i kind of do but i dont". His works are generally not something you listen to once and understand, either, it start making sense after a second or a third listen...

[freeztar]

Well, I'll take your word for it and give Mahler several more listens before making a final opinion. I suppose it might be a bit like Wagner in a way, regarding licorice.

 

I certainly can understand the audio quality issue. But, if you're analyzing composition, it doesn't matter if it's all MIDI GM. ;) But yes, for a good listening experience for the sheer enjoyment of the piece, sound quality is certainly imperative. This is especially true for classical music where the dynamics range can be extreme.

 

Out of curiousity, what headphones do you use? :) (this question could be a whole thread on its own I imagine...or maybe its better for the Audiophile group)

[alexander]

i have a few sets actually, most of the time i use my pioneer hdj-1000 dj set, they are great at blocking outside sounds but without active sound blocking elements wich dont distort music, they produce great lows and mids, with fair highs, oh and did i mention they are confy full ear set. I have a 5.1 surround sound set i won at a conf a few years back, it's pretty good, but not as versatile as the pioneer set, they dont feel as solid and i think the sound is, while on par, certainly not much better then the pioneer set. I have a sony headphone set, i dont remember what model, i actually gave them to my mom, they are a set for recording studios for vocals, good highs and mids, but not that great in lows, and only marginal highs, marginally good. I also have a set of sony earbuds, boy were those expensive, that i use at work (when i have time to listen to anything), they have amazing mids for their size, and marginal lows and highs, but honestly for the size, they do a pretty good job at blocking external sounds as well. I have tried bose sets before, they are ok, but they are not all what bose claims them to be. I have a logitech surround sound system for my desktop that i fire up every now and again, separate sub, 5 monitors (mids and low speakers in each), it does 5.1 surround sound, and for the price does an OK job at it. And that's about it for the headphones. Oh wait, i do have another set, sony v-700dj dj set, this is not the set i mentioned above by the way, also good sound characteristics, of anything only lacking in highs, like my pioneer set. not much more to note, i have some headsets with mics, but they are hardly even worth a mention, and i never listen to music, other then youtube music and only sometimes...

[freeztar]

Cool. Those Pioneer's might be worth checking out based on your review. I love Pioneer stuff. I had a receiver made by them that lasted me a good 10 years before it died. It was awesome! ;)

 

I use Sennheiser headphones for my audio work. They're not the best, but I'm perfectly happy with them. They've actually helped me fix some bass issues that were plaguing me and my monitors were distorting. Actually, they're pretty balanced across the spectrum. I certainly recommend them. It's this model. Amazon.com: Sennheiser HD-280 Professional Headphones: Electronics http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-280-Pro-Professional/dp/B000065BPB

 

:)

[alexander]

Just so you know, the pioneers are not cheap, and i will put in a complaint, they are not quite as rugged, with heavy use, they will break in under a year (heavy use meaning dj gigs nearly every week with practices all throughout the week), that said, mine started disintigrating after about 2 years of use, ear pads started crumpling, i gotta get a new set, but as i said, they are not cheap... i paid 90 bucks for those sony ear buds (speaking of stuff that is nearly unjustifyably expensive), but at the time i paid about $200 for the pioneers ;), and you will still pay nearly a buck and a half for them now... but they have been great, sound-wise, and the electronics can handle a punch... they are built to handle 3000mw in, and they will crackle at high volume out, but i really never run them that high, i would like to hear when i get older and all, i read some people having crackle at high volume, i have had these up quite a bit, i cant say i have ever heard it though :)

[alexander]

First movement of Mahler's Symphony No. 9

 

So I listened to the first movement last night, and I have to say that it is really interesting. I think I am beeginning to gain appreciation for Mahler's work. In his later symphonies, Mahler, after a series of bad things that happened to him, his daughter dying, finding that he got a heart disease and so forth, really shows how unfair the world is in his eyes, and ultimately his discust with humanity. I think it's evident in his music, but let's not get ahead of myself here.

 

First movement, wow, its so contrasting, its never really calm, but it start happy, it builds, builds until this second line comes in that swivels, bends, builds up, and up until like a wave splashes all over the rocks, and it's calm again. This happens 4 or 5 times, and, actually what's interesting is that after the third time, i think, it this explosive moment of conflict goes off, but when the music returns it's not a happy music, it takes a while to heal...

 

So what did it mean to me? Well, the first movements seems to describe humanitie's history, people live, with their happy, every day life, i say every day, because the happy motif repeats itself, its interesting, then, like in the real world, pressure builds up between lines, and humanity plunges into a conflict, explosive, loud, very emotionally rich motifs and deep notes with lots of instruments.

 

Really intreaguing movement there, second and third both set up the forth, so tonight or tomorrow, i will listen to the second and third movements, or maybe finish this symphony off, post my thoughts then ;)

[Moontanman]

Alex, do you really think you are a member of the first generation to be accused of dismissing classical music? I can remember being young ( yes I can remember dinosaurs too) and not being the slightest bit into classical music, although when i ever i didn't stumble onto it i enjoyed it but Blue Oyster Cult was more my speed and I seldom bothered to buy or listen to classical music. I still seldom listen to it but when i do i invariably like it but it still doesn't move me the way the music of my generation does. Sad I know but it's the way it is....