DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: DarkLord_Lalinc on October 19, 2014, 11:53:18 AM
-
There, I asked. What do you think is the best composition of all times?
-
Probably something from 300-500 years ago or the 70s.
-
Supper's Ready is #1
Cygnus X-1 - Book 2: Hemispheres is #2
-
Pachelbel's Canon in D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
EDIT - Serious answer, though? If I had to pick a SINGLE PIECE of music, I would say "The Whirlwind" by Transatlantic. It's long, it's epic, it's got ups and downs, lots of musical and lyrical themes, it's an emotional roller coaster with wonderful performances by every band member. It's not my FAVORITE TA album (that would be BAF, at least my edit of it), but as a single piece of music, it's just astonishing.
I'd also rank pieces like DT's "Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence", Rush's "2112" and Yes' "Awaken" and "Gates Of Delerium" (especially for the closing "Soon" section) up there as well.
-Marc.
-
Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, the song. Beethoven's Moolinght sonata would be at #2 though, it touches me so hard when I play it.
-
Igor Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring or Firebird. Either way, he wins.
-
Status Seeker.
-
Igor Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring or Firebird. Either way, he wins.
Thumbs up for Stravinsky! He and Holst are two of my favorite 20th century classical composers.
-Marc.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_considered_the_best
From that list, I would choose Beatles' A Day in the Life, Hotel California or American Pie.
Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is a good suggestion too.
In the prog world, I would suggest The Carpet Crawlers.
-
All things considered, Rhapsody in Blue.
-
All things considered, Rhapsody in Blue.
:tup
-
Beethoven's 5th. Has there ever been a more metal riff?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_considered_the_best
From that list, I would choose Beatles' A Day in the Life, Hotel California or American Pie.
Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is a good suggestion too.
In the prog world, I would suggest The Carpet Crawlers.
I love your 3 non prog picks Rumbo.
-
Echoes.
/thread
-
Pelagial.
-
Raw Dog
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PLWqnfFgU
-
He and Holst are two of my favorite 20th century classical composers.
Jupiter
-
For me, it would be definitely Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
There hasn't been a greater musical achievement of such magnitude ever since IMO.
-
I farted earlier. It brought tears to my eyes.
-
For me, it would be definitely Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
There hasn't been a greater musical achievement of such magnitude ever since IMO.
Obviously this whole thread is of extremely personal opinion, but, I have to ask, isn't there the danger of confusing quantity with quality?
I kinda suspect the same thing happening with the poster who suggested Whirlwind, which is also over an hour of audio. Are those two pieces of constant high quality, or is it just easy to blend out the weak parts and remember the strong ones? If the piece is long enough, there's bound to be enough sections you will like.
When I suggested for example A Day in the Life or Hotel California, I thought those two songs shine because there are no bad parts. They aren't crazy long, but in that time frame they deliver salvo after salvo of awesomeness.
-
I farted earlier. It brought tears to my eyes.
Yeah, mine too. ;D
My favorite song of all time is Dream Theater's Learning To Live, but I'd accept Stairway To Heaven as the correct answer.
-
I'll third on either of the Stravinsky pieces.
The other candidate for me is John Coltrane's A Love Supreme (big shock, I know).
-
For me, it would be definitely Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
There hasn't been a greater musical achievement of such magnitude ever since IMO.
Obviously this whole thread is of extremely personal opinion, but, I have to ask, isn't there the danger of confusing quantity with quality?
I kinda suspect the same thing happening with the poster who suggested Whirlwind, which is also over an hour of audio. Are those two pieces of constant high quality, or is it just easy to blend out the weak parts and remember the strong ones? If the piece is long enough, there's bound to be enough sections you will like (and both last over an hour).
When I suggested for example A Day in the Life or Hotel California, I thought those two songs shine because there are no bad parts. They aren't crazy long, but in that time frame they deliver salvo after salvo of awesomeness.
I get what you mean, and your examples illustrate quite nicely your point. I do think that being able to pack a lot of awesomeness in a short period of time is a work of genius, and there have been really few groups of musicians that have achieved such a feat.
That being said, I had the chance of witnessing the 9th performed by a local orchestra a couple of months ago and it was one of the most mesmerzing musical experiences I've ever lived. There are no dull moments in any of the four movements whatsoever, and I don't think the 9th can be compared to The Whirlwind in any way but by their length.
I mean, the 9th (as well as most of Beethoven's work and most of the greats from the past) has stood the test of time and will continue to be a reference to a whole period in music history and the masterpiece work of one of the most gifted musicians that ever lived. I think The Whirlwind is a great album (not better than Bridge Across Forever if we jump to the prog wagon), but I don't think that it will be remembered in 50 years as one of the albums that defined a generation/period/anything.
-
Dream Theater's Meta-Album
-
Echoes.
/thread
Mah nigga :tup :tup :tup
-
Echoes.
/thread
Mah nigga :tup :tup :tup
:heart :heart :heart
-
For me, it would be definitely Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
There hasn't been a greater musical achievement of such magnitude ever since IMO.
Obviously this whole thread is of extremely personal opinion, but, I have to ask, isn't there the danger of confusing quantity with quality?
I kinda suspect the same thing happening with the poster who suggested Whirlwind, which is also over an hour of audio. Are those two pieces of constant high quality, or is it just easy to blend out the weak parts and remember the strong ones? If the piece is long enough, there's bound to be enough sections you will like (and both last over an hour).
When I suggested for example A Day in the Life or Hotel California, I thought those two songs shine because there are no bad parts. They aren't crazy long, but in that time frame they deliver salvo after salvo of awesomeness.
I get what you mean, and your examples illustrate quite nicely your point. I do think that being able to pack a lot of awesomeness in a short period of time is a work of genius, and there have been really few groups of musicians that have achieved such a feat.
That being said, I had the chance of witnessing the 9th performed by a local orchestra a couple of months ago and it was one of the most mesmerzing musical experiences I've ever lived. There are no dull moments in any of the four movements whatsoever, and I don't think the 9th can be compared to The Whirlwind in any way but by their length.
I mean, the 9th (as well as most of Beethoven's work and most of the greats from the past) has stood the test of time and will continue to be a reference to a whole period in music history and the masterpiece work of one of the most gifted musicians that ever lived. I think The Whirlwind is a great album (not better than Bridge Across Forever if we jump to the prog wagon), but I don't think that it will be remembered in 50 years as one of the albums that defined a generation/period/anything.
Yeah, the biggest impetus for my post was of course the Whirlwind suggestion. I think Beethoven's 9th clearly stood the test of time.
I've just seen a lot of times over the years on this forum that people equate longwinded pieces with good music.
-
I'm honestly not sure what song(s) I would rank as the greatest piece of music of all time. I'd really have to think hard on that one...
I will say though that the earlier mentioning of Awaken by Yes is definitely a good pick. Don't know if I'd go for it myself, but that's actually a really smart contender.
-
For me, it would be definitely Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
There hasn't been a greater musical achievement of such magnitude ever since IMO.
Obviously this whole thread is of extremely personal opinion, but, I have to ask, isn't there the danger of confusing quantity with quality?
I kinda suspect the same thing happening with the poster who suggested Whirlwind, which is also over an hour of audio. Are those two pieces of constant high quality, or is it just easy to blend out the weak parts and remember the strong ones? If the piece is long enough, there's bound to be enough sections you will like.
When I suggested for example A Day in the Life or Hotel California, I thought those two songs shine because there are no bad parts. They aren't crazy long, but in that time frame they deliver salvo after salvo of awesomeness.
I used to make the same argument about A Change of Seasons / Six Degrees and Blind Faith / Lines in the Sand years ago.
I'm quite the sucker for buying into the colossal reputation that certain albums have. Most, of course, just become good/great albums that don't have any huge lasting impact. A few painful cases have crashed and burned under the weight of my anticipation and spectacularly failed to deliver on their mythos - the two biggest ones were The Wall and Sgt Peppers.
I never had greater expectations for a piece of music than Beethoven's 9th. I kid you not, when I bought it, I didn't dare listen to it for nine months. It just sat there waiting amongst my other music until I could muster up the balls to put it on.
And it didn't disappoint me at all. Looking back, I guess I should find that incredible, but it's just that good, from start to finish, which isn't something I'd say about many of Beethoven's works. In fact, the Moonlight Sonata has an amazing first movement, a brief bridge of a second, and then a jarring third that, to me, actually detracts from the impact of the first.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4izMuXBP6OA
-
Others that come to mind:
John Butler's Ocean, a song which he wrote more than 15 years ago and constantly adapts live. It's still getting better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUPA_JDHUw
Charles Mingus' The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady (four tracks, but it's all one suite)
Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto
And as ever, I stand by the opinion that all four songs on Side B of Dylan's Bringing It All Back Home could be the best song ever made, depending on the day of the week.
-
Yeah, the biggest impetus for my post was of course the Whirlwind suggestion. I think Beethoven's 9th clearly stood the test of time.
I've just seen a lot of times over the years on this forum that people equate longwinded pieces with good music.
Agreed. To me, The Whirlwind isn't any more special than other epics I've heard, it's a lesser epic to me even. It's only distinction is it's length.
-
Another one of my favorite pieces of music is called Future by Quentin Doyen. It's beautiful.
https://musescore.com/user/99717/scores/216606
-
All things considered, Rhapsody in Blue.
:tup Gershwin is great and this track is perfect! :smiley:
-
Haha, kinda tough question :D
At the moment I'd say (tomorrow it might be different) Henryk Gorecki's Symphony Of Sorrowful Songs . So "simple" yet so effective!
-
Partially the problem of this thread is that we will have to wait until the end of time before we can answer the question.
-
I can understand some folks not liking The Whirlwind as a whole, and I can see where and why they'd think that, but for me, it's a near-masterpiece in its entirety. There isn't much I would change about it, and I've always loved every second of it all.
If I could count Bridge Across Forever as a single piece, or at least my edit of it which takes DWTD, SCP and BAF to make them flow into each other continuously (with SCP's ending restored fading into the intro of BAF), then I would make that my top. But as it stands, the album isn't really a single piece, although the three longer tracks all share movements and themes and is semi-conceptual in nature because of that.
At any rate, I know some will be quick to say "quantity over quality" in my suggesting of The Whirlwind, but I truly believe that it's quality lives up to and equals its quantity. Perhaps I just love the band and its member so much, and maybe I see it all through rose-colored glasses, but either way, it's just how I feel.
If I thought about it longer, too, I'd toss in a lot more songs into this, like a few by The Beatles (which are all shorter, mind you lol), a few classical pieces (like some of the aforementioned ones, as well as Dvorak's "New World Symphony"), and maybe some other more modern pieces by newer bands (with current favorites being the last two tracks on Flying Colors' latest).
-Marc.
-
The thing about long pieces is that the whole really is greater than the sum of the parts. So even if none of the individual parts would qualify as your favorite music, the way it all comes together adds a whole other layer. The idea that individual tracks are contributing to greater themes and ideas makes them automatically more enticing to listen to, and if there is a strong connection throughout the album, then the album as a whole is more enticing. When I look at albums that I have obsessed over and listened to for days on end, the majority of them are some form of concept album for this very reason.
(The Whirlwind is my favorite album, if that says anything)
-
Echoes.
/thread
Hell yes.
-
Partially the problem of this thread is that we will have to wait until the end of time before we can answer the question.
Good thing we have time. :neverusethis:
-
OBVI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) it's Never Gonna Give You Up. I don't know why this is even a question.
Fuck the classics.
Not really, I'm probably just not smart or snobby enough to get it. :P *Sticks pinky higher in the air* NVM. I get it.
-
Had to google and I think I found it guys:
Best Song Ever (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_v9MY_FMcw)
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/Smileys/default/tard.gif)
-
John Cage's 4'33'' comes to mind.
-
John Cage's 4'33'' comes to mind.
:lol
-
Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2. It's epic in the true sense of the word. An 85-minute journey from darkness to light. The finale on its own contains just about every possible emotion and dynamic, and it ends with the single most overwhelmingly powerful moment in all of music, ever. If you're not moved to tears by it, you are simply not human.
-
John Cage's 4'33'' comes to mind.
4:33 of pure silent bliss
-
Magic Johnson stands 4'33"
-
Had to google and I think I found it guys:
Best Song Ever (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_v9MY_FMcw)
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/Smileys/default/tard.gif)
Tenacious D - Tribute (The Best Song In The World): https://youtu.be/2Jvgbe9Kx0U
-
Sonata Arctica - Da Best Song Ever (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS3HYU3TOiw)
-
Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 for me. And Octavarium.
-
Astor Piazzolla's Adios Nonino probably.
-
Watermelon in Easter Hay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9DqykUsqRY) - Frank Zappa
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
Regarding The Whirldwind earlier in the thread, personally, as a whole, it's far from being perfect. Now if you were to isolate Is It Really Happening?, then you'd have a good case. :lol
-
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
I agree with this. I think classical music has a sort of reverence attached to it that, for the most part, is pretty unwarranted.
Back in the day, other than simplistic folk music, it simply was the only music in town. And it was still heavily encumbered by rules about what constitutes "proper music" and what not.
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
Regarding The Whirldwind earlier in the thread, personally, as a whole, it's far from being perfect. Now if you were to isolate Is It Really Happening?, then you'd have a good case. :lol
No doubt that "Is It Really Happening?" is one of the greater moments the piece has to offer, but all of the build-up before it and the cathartic release after it really help to amplify the 11th movement's power. To me, it serves the purpose of climaxing before the closing movement, a strong tension and release, especially after an hour of music.
-Marc.
-
Totally agreed. The album itself is still quite good and in that regard, Is It Really Happening? is the perfect climax to it all. Even by itself, it's still one of the finest pieces prog has to offer. It has the tension, the build-up, the sheer raw soul and energy. It's really got it all.
-
Lady Brown might be the greatest rap song of all time.
-
A Change of Seasons
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
Several reasons why classical music is considered by some to contain the greatest music of all times:
- Just about every aspect of contemporary music was invented in classical music. Just about every chord progression that for instance Dream Theater uses has been used in classical music. Every rhythm and time signature change has been done by Stravinsky and Bartok, every phrasing done by Mozart and Beethoven. There is a reason why modern classical music is largely atonal: the possibilities of tonal music had simply been exhausted near the end of the 19th century: there was literally almost nothing to write that had not been done before. Every theme and harmony had been exploited.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is huge. Classical music is simply all music that was written in close to 4 centuries in all the western world: this is a huge amount of pieces. Combine this with the fact that many classical composers had a far larger output than most modern artists, and that most classical composers were far ahead in terms of raw compositional skill compared to many contemporary musicians, the purely statistical chance of the greatest music being in classical music becomes quite big.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is extremely varied, much more so than most contemporary music. Compare Debussy to Palestrina and you'll be hard pressed to find any similarities, yet they still exist under the same name. Compare pop to rock to funk to blues and you'll find that they all use rougly the same progressions, all use the minor pentatonic scale heavily, all play in 4/4, all use major/minor tonality, use roughly the same instruments etc. etc.
- It is the most sophisticated music ever written. Even most progressive music which is fairly complicated by contemporary standards is intellectually dull when compared to for example pieces like Bach's Kunst der Fuge. Only the best modern jazz comes close. Now, mere sophistication does not make great music of course, but at least it's an indication that classical composers were craftsmen of the highest degree, and indeed of a degree virtually unseen in contemporary music of any popularity. The best craftsmen tend to make the best products, think of this what you will.
Now, as you said, greatness is a very subjective term, but these are some reasons why some people (myself included) could consider classical music as containing the greatest music ever written.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
I agree with this. I think classical music has a sort of reverence attached to it that, for the most part, is pretty unwarranted.
Back in the day, other than simplistic folk music, it simply was the only music in town. And it was still heavily encumbered by rules about what constitutes "proper music" and what not.
Your argument about classical music being the only music in town doesn't quite hold: just like today there were scores of composers in previous centuries. Therefore, what we call classical music now actually consists of the top 0.1-th percentile of the music that was made back in the day: it's not like what we are listening to now was the only music produced back then. Furthermore, J.S. Bach's music for instance was virtually unknown during his lifetime and wasn't performed again until almost a century after his death by rabid enthusiasts, at a time when contemporary music was flourishing. It was thus hardly the only music in town, in fact it had never been in town at all! The same is true for D. Scarlatti, Telemann etc.
About your argument that classical music was encumbered by rules, a lot of classical music was definitely not considered "proper music". Think of Stravinsky's audience wrecking the furniture during the first concert of the Sacre du Printemps, J.S. Bach being fired by churches because his music was "unlisteneable", Brahms being considered extremely old-fashioned, Mahler symphonies being rejected, etc. The fact is that many of these composers were so far ahead of their time that their music was hated: it was quite the opposite of "proper music". Of course some composers conformed to the rules of proper music, but this is fairly rare: our classical composers were mostly the trendsetters of the day. An average composer who simply went with the flow is often not remembered: like scientists composers are remembered because they invented something radically new and were great at it.
I'm wondering: how familiar are you with classical music, have you analyzed many pieces for example? The reason why I am asking is that I've never heard anyone who's seriously studied classical music saying its reverence is unwarranted. I'm not trying to have a dig at you, I'm genuinely interested in why you hold this opinion.
-
Just so you know, I'm not insinuating that classical music can't have some greatest-of-all-time compositions of its own.
Now, as you said, greatness is a very subjective term, but these are some reasons why some people (myself included) could consider classical music as containing the greatest music ever written.
That's fine. Genre bias is inevitable when you consider that you're always gonna prefer some style of music over another. Your original comment just seemed to come off as though other, more contemporary genres couldn't hope to match classical music's quality or some such, that's all.
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
Several reasons why classical music is considered by some to contain the greatest music of all times:
- Just about every aspect of contemporary music was invented in classical music. Just about every chord progression that for instance Dream Theater uses has been used in classical music. Every rhythm and time signature change has been done by Stravinsky and Bartok, every phrasing done by Mozart and Beethoven. There is a reason why modern classical music is largely atonal: the possibilities of tonal music had simply been exhausted near the end of the 19th century: there was literally almost nothing to write that had not been done before. Every theme and harmony had been exploited.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is huge. Classical music is simply all music that was written in close to 4 centuries in all the western world: this is a huge amount of pieces. Combine this with the fact that many classical composers had a far larger output than most modern artists, and that most classical composers were far ahead in terms of raw compositional skill compared to many contemporary musicians, the purely statistical chance of the greatest music being in classical music becomes quite big.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is extremely varied, much more so than most contemporary music. Compare Debussy to Palestrina and you'll be hard pressed to find any similarities, yet they still exist under the same name. Compare pop to rock to funk to blues and you'll find that they all use rougly the same progressions, all use the minor pentatonic scale heavily, all play in 4/4, all use major/minor tonality, use roughly the same instruments etc. etc.
- It is the most sophisticated music ever written. Even most progressive music which is fairly complicated by contemporary standards is intellectually dull when compared to for example pieces like Bach's Kunst der Fuge. Only the best modern jazz comes close. Now, mere sophistication does not make great music of course, but at least it's an indication that classical composers were craftsmen of the highest degree, and indeed of a degree virtually unseen in contemporary music of any popularity. The best craftsmen tend to make the best products, think of this what you will.
Now, as you said, greatness is a very subjective term, but these are some reasons why some people (myself included) could consider classical music as containing the greatest music ever written.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
I agree with this. I think classical music has a sort of reverence attached to it that, for the most part, is pretty unwarranted.
Back in the day, other than simplistic folk music, it simply was the only music in town. And it was still heavily encumbered by rules about what constitutes "proper music" and what not.
Your argument about classical music being the only music in town doesn't quite hold: just like today there were scores of composers in previous centuries. Therefore, what we call classical music now actually consists of the top 0.1-th percentile of the music that was made back in the day: it's not like what we are listening to now was the only music produced back then. Furthermore, J.S. Bach's music for instance was virtually unknown during his lifetime and wasn't performed again until almost a century after his death by rabid enthusiasts, at a time when contemporary music was flourishing. It was thus hardly the only music in town, in fact it had never been in town at all! The same is true for D. Scarlatti, Telemann etc.
About your argument that classical music was encumbered by rules, a lot of classical music was definitely not considered "proper music". Think of Stravinsky's audience wrecking the furniture during the first concert of the Sacre du Printemps, J.S. Bach being fired by churches because his music was "unlisteneable", Brahms being considered extremely old-fashioned, Mahler symphonies being rejected, etc. The fact is that many of these composers were so far ahead of their time that their music was hated: it was quite the opposite of "proper music". Of course some composers conformed to the rules of proper music, but this is fairly rare: our classical composers were mostly the trendsetters of the day. An average composer who simply went with the flow is often not remembered: like scientists composers are remembered because they invented something radically new and were great at it.
I'm wondering: how familiar are you with classical music, have you analyzed many pieces for example? The reason why I am asking is that I've never heard anyone who's seriously studied classical music saying its reverence is unwarranted. I'm not trying to have a dig at you, I'm genuinely interested in why you hold this opinion.
what he said. and like i said its pretty tough to argue against how certain composers have remained revered over centuries. i doubt people will be talking about light fuse and get away 200 years from now.
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
Several reasons why classical music is considered by some to contain the greatest music of all times:
- Just about every aspect of contemporary music was invented in classical music. Just about every chord progression that for instance Dream Theater uses has been used in classical music. Every rhythm and time signature change has been done by Stravinsky and Bartok, every phrasing done by Mozart and Beethoven. There is a reason why modern classical music is largely atonal: the possibilities of tonal music had simply been exhausted near the end of the 19th century: there was literally almost nothing to write that had not been done before. Every theme and harmony had been exploited.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is huge. Classical music is simply all music that was written in close to 4 centuries in all the western world: this is a huge amount of pieces. Combine this with the fact that many classical composers had a far larger output than most modern artists, and that most classical composers were far ahead in terms of raw compositional skill compared to many contemporary musicians, the purely statistical chance of the greatest music being in classical music becomes quite big.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is extremely varied, much more so than most contemporary music. Compare Debussy to Palestrina and you'll be hard pressed to find any similarities, yet they still exist under the same name. Compare pop to rock to funk to blues and you'll find that they all use rougly the same progressions, all use the minor pentatonic scale heavily, all play in 4/4, all use major/minor tonality, use roughly the same instruments etc. etc.
- It is the most sophisticated music ever written. Even most progressive music which is fairly complicated by contemporary standards is intellectually dull when compared to for example pieces like Bach's Kunst der Fuge. Only the best modern jazz comes close. Now, mere sophistication does not make great music of course, but at least it's an indication that classical composers were craftsmen of the highest degree, and indeed of a degree virtually unseen in contemporary music of any popularity. The best craftsmen tend to make the best products, think of this what you will.
Now, as you said, greatness is a very subjective term, but these are some reasons why some people (myself included) could consider classical music as containing the greatest music ever written.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
I agree with this. I think classical music has a sort of reverence attached to it that, for the most part, is pretty unwarranted.
Back in the day, other than simplistic folk music, it simply was the only music in town. And it was still heavily encumbered by rules about what constitutes "proper music" and what not.
Your argument about classical music being the only music in town doesn't quite hold: just like today there were scores of composers in previous centuries. Therefore, what we call classical music now actually consists of the top 0.1-th percentile of the music that was made back in the day: it's not like what we are listening to now was the only music produced back then. Furthermore, J.S. Bach's music for instance was virtually unknown during his lifetime and wasn't performed again until almost a century after his death by rabid enthusiasts, at a time when contemporary music was flourishing. It was thus hardly the only music in town, in fact it had never been in town at all! The same is true for D. Scarlatti, Telemann etc.
About your argument that classical music was encumbered by rules, a lot of classical music was definitely not considered "proper music". Think of Stravinsky's audience wrecking the furniture during the first concert of the Sacre du Printemps, J.S. Bach being fired by churches because his music was "unlisteneable", Brahms being considered extremely old-fashioned, Mahler symphonies being rejected, etc. The fact is that many of these composers were so far ahead of their time that their music was hated: it was quite the opposite of "proper music". Of course some composers conformed to the rules of proper music, but this is fairly rare: our classical composers were mostly the trendsetters of the day. An average composer who simply went with the flow is often not remembered: like scientists composers are remembered because they invented something radically new and were great at it.
I'm wondering: how familiar are you with classical music, have you analyzed many pieces for example? The reason why I am asking is that I've never heard anyone who's seriously studied classical music saying its reverence is unwarranted. I'm not trying to have a dig at you, I'm genuinely interested in why you hold this opinion.
Very well said!
-
i doubt people will be talking about light fuse and get away 200 years from now.
Shots. Fucking. Fired.
-
This comes down to personal preference. I can't announce a composition to be the best ever. The whole idea kinda seems silly. Maybe I just don't want to consider one song the best. Music is the greatest invention of mankind though. And my favorite music is rock music. Rock will definitely earn its place next to Classical and Jazz.
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
You're right, great music will stand the test of time, be it from any genre. Also, "great music" is something that both Classical and Rock have in large amounts.
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
Rock music has only been around for 60 or so years, so saying that it 'won't stand the test of time' is a little silly if you ask me because we're still, relatively, in the beginning of it. Who knows what's going to happen. Plus with the internet, things don't just get lost anymore. Everything that's been released is going to be around for as long as there's an internet.
Also, most musicians, at least the ones I know, like to dig deep when searching for influences. If you really want to figure out why a person writes the music they do, you listen to what they listen to, and what the people they listen to listened to. You just keep digging.
Oh, and The Beatles.
Now, to get back on track here, the greatest piece of music of all time is 'Drought of Snow' by A Great Big Pile of Leaves. With 'Day of the Baphomets' by The Mars Volta in a close second.
-
Classical music is overhyped. Most of it was written to a certain standard with very few pushing boundaries (those being the ones we remember most today). Just like how music is written now. Paul McCartney had a quote around the time Sgt Pepper was made, something to the effect of: "pop is the classical music of now". Sure music is simpler now, but that has more to do with the way technology has evolved more than anything else. I don't see why other styles of music (rock, metal, electronic, country, you name it) won't be remembered the way Classical is.
-
Classical music is overhyped. Most of it was written to a certain standard with very few pushing boundaries (those being the ones we remember most today). Just like how music is written now. Paul McCartney had a quote around the time Sgt Pepper was made, something to the effect of: "pop is the classical music of now". Sure music is simpler now, but that has more to do with the way technology has evolved more than anything else. I don't see why other styles of music (rock, metal, electronic, country, you name it) won't be remembered the way Classical is.
This sentence is a paradox, I think. If technology has gotten better, why would music become simpler?
-
Plus with the internet, things don't just get lost anymore. Everything that's been released is going to be around for as long as there's an internet.
I think you're reversing the argument here: the internet is actually a very volatile place with regard to storage, much more volatile than the physical archives in which classical music is stored. We still have archives full of classical music that has never even been performed, chances are this will not be so for rock music in 200 years unless someone starts a humongous "data tank" and really makes sure nothing is lost. Sure, the most popular rock will survive, but when we look at music history mere popularity is rarely a good indicator of lasting value.
I think the biggest factor which may prevent the survival of contemporary popular music may be the fact that pop/rock/funk etc. are very much tied up to the actual artists. You don't need Brahms to play a Brahms symphony, and in fact even back in the day classical music was often performed without the actual composers being there. However, you need Paul McCartney to play a Beatles song, and you need Axl Rose to play Guns 'n Roses. Sure, you can start a Beatles cover band, but A. who would go and see that? and B. it simply will never sound the same. Performance is what keeps music alive. Jazz is already encountering the same problems: sure you can cover Coltrane but is it really the same? I think this is one of the factors why classical music is still so relevant.
Classical music is overhyped. Most of it was written to a certain standard with very few pushing boundaries (those being the ones we remember most today). Just like how music is written now.
To a certain very high standard indeed. You might not like classical music, but to say it is overhyped is a falsity. Don't forget that we owe almost every element in modern music to classical music.
Sure music is simpler now, but that has more to do with the way technology has evolved more than anything else.
I think that would actually have more to do with most current composers lacking the compositional skill to write anything else than very simple music. Could John Lennon have written a good fugue? Could Slash compose some proper counterpoint? Me thinks no.
-
Classical music is overhyped. Most of it was written to a certain standard with very few pushing boundaries (those being the ones we remember most today). Just like how music is written now.
To a certain very high standard indeed. You might not like classical music, but to say it is overhyped is a falsity. Don't forget that we owe almost every element in modern music to classical music.
Where did I say I didn't like classical music? I love it. I just don't think it deserves to be placed on such a high pedestal. There are lots of great things about it and the composers were great. But what they were doing then is completely different to what music is now and isn't necessarily better or more impressive. I have the same feeling when people tout progressive rock as if it's on a higher plane than other forms of rock music. These styles just highlight different strengths of the performers and composers.
Classical music is overhyped. Most of it was written to a certain standard with very few pushing boundaries (those being the ones we remember most today). Just like how music is written now. Paul McCartney had a quote around the time Sgt Pepper was made, something to the effect of: "pop is the classical music of now". Sure music is simpler now, but that has more to do with the way technology has evolved more than anything else. I don't see why other styles of music (rock, metal, electronic, country, you name it) won't be remembered the way Classical is.
This sentence is a paradox, I think. If technology has gotten better, why would music become simpler?
Not a paradox. Think of things like radio, record players. Television even. The average attention span was starting to seriously shorten. Music had to be simplified and shaped for shorter song forms.
-
Classical music is overhyped. Most of it was written to a certain standard with very few pushing boundaries (those being the ones we remember most today). Just like how music is written now.
To a certain very high standard indeed. You might not like classical music, but to say it is overhyped is a falsity. Don't forget that we owe almost every element in modern music to classical music.
Where did I say I didn't like classical music? I love it. I just don't think it deserves to be placed on such a high pedestal. There are lots of great things about it and the composers were great. But what they were doing then is completely different to what music is now and isn't necessarily better or more impressive.
Okay, to each their own. But how would you say that modern music is completely different from all of classical music? When I hear modern music I hear the same progressions, same phrasing, same rhythms, same textual subjects as in classical music. The structures of pieces and the instruments are the only real difference I can think of off the top of my head, and these are rather minor. Where would you say the big differences are?
Classical music is overhyped. Most of it was written to a certain standard with very few pushing boundaries (those being the ones we remember most today). Just like how music is written now. Paul McCartney had a quote around the time Sgt Pepper was made, something to the effect of: "pop is the classical music of now". Sure music is simpler now, but that has more to do with the way technology has evolved more than anything else. I don't see why other styles of music (rock, metal, electronic, country, you name it) won't be remembered the way Classical is.
This sentence is a paradox, I think. If technology has gotten better, why would music become simpler?
Not a paradox. Think of things like radio, record players. Television even. The average attention span was starting to seriously shorten. Music had to be simplified and shaped for shorter song forms.
I think you have a point there about the length of pieces, I remember Stravinsky saying something similar about people's attention spans. But still, that only explains why music has gotten shorter, not why it has become simpler. Long does not equal complex. I still think the simplicity factor mostly has to do with the decreased compositional skills of composers, a less educated audience and the increased commercialization of music.
-
Lol, hell no. Pop/Rock is simpler in its instrumentation and length because it serves a different purpose.
A lot of classical music is written for a symphony orchestra because that was the only way of having pieces that varied in sound. For each sound, you needed a separate person.
But, you don't just haul an orchestra into a building for a 5 minute tune. No, you make it an event at least an hour long. So, the format of the music grew with the way of performing it.
Besides, just because there is a short gap between songs on a CD, does not diminish an album compared to a continuous classical piece.
-
i doubt people will be talking about light fuse and get away 200 years from now.
I'm surprised whenever I see anyone mentioning it NOW.
-
Several reasons why classical music is considered by some to contain the greatest music of all times:
- Just about every aspect of contemporary music was invented in classical music. Just about every chord progression that for instance Dream Theater uses has been used in classical music. Every rhythm and time signature change has been done by Stravinsky and Bartok, every phrasing done by Mozart and Beethoven. There is a reason why modern classical music is largely atonal: the possibilities of tonal music had simply been exhausted near the end of the 19th century: there was literally almost nothing to write that had not been done before. Every theme and harmony had been exploited.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is huge. Classical music is simply all music that was written in close to 4 centuries in all the western world: this is a huge amount of pieces. Combine this with the fact that many classical composers had a far larger output than most modern artists, and that most classical composers were far ahead in terms of raw compositional skill compared to many contemporary musicians, the purely statistical chance of the greatest music being in classical music becomes quite big.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is extremely varied, much more so than most contemporary music. Compare Debussy to Palestrina and you'll be hard pressed to find any similarities, yet they still exist under the same name. Compare pop to rock to funk to blues and you'll find that they all use rougly the same progressions, all use the minor pentatonic scale heavily, all play in 4/4, all use major/minor tonality, use roughly the same instruments etc. etc.
- It is the most sophisticated music ever written. Even most progressive music which is fairly complicated by contemporary standards is intellectually dull when compared to for example pieces like Bach's Kunst der Fuge. Only the best modern jazz comes close. Now, mere sophistication does not make great music of course, but at least it's an indication that classical composers were craftsmen of the highest degree, and indeed of a degree virtually unseen in contemporary music of any popularity. The best craftsmen tend to make the best products, think of this what you will.
Now, as you said, greatness is a very subjective term, but these are some reasons why some people (myself included) could consider classical music as containing the greatest music ever written.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
I agree with this. I think classical music has a sort of reverence attached to it that, for the most part, is pretty unwarranted.
Back in the day, other than simplistic folk music, it simply was the only music in town. And it was still heavily encumbered by rules about what constitutes "proper music" and what not.
Your argument about classical music being the only music in town doesn't quite hold: just like today there were scores of composers in previous centuries. Therefore, what we call classical music now actually consists of the top 0.1-th percentile of the music that was made back in the day: it's not like what we are listening to now was the only music produced back then. Furthermore, J.S. Bach's music for instance was virtually unknown during his lifetime and wasn't performed again until almost a century after his death by rabid enthusiasts, at a time when contemporary music was flourishing. It was thus hardly the only music in town, in fact it had never been in town at all! The same is true for D. Scarlatti, Telemann etc.
About your argument that classical music was encumbered by rules, a lot of classical music was definitely not considered "proper music". Think of Stravinsky's audience wrecking the furniture during the first concert of the Sacre du Printemps, J.S. Bach being fired by churches because his music was "unlisteneable", Brahms being considered extremely old-fashioned, Mahler symphonies being rejected, etc. The fact is that many of these composers were so far ahead of their time that their music was hated: it was quite the opposite of "proper music". Of course some composers conformed to the rules of proper music, but this is fairly rare: our classical composers were mostly the trendsetters of the day. An average composer who simply went with the flow is often not remembered: like scientists composers are remembered because they invented something radically new and were great at it.
I'm wondering: how familiar are you with classical music, have you analyzed many pieces for example? The reason why I am asking is that I've never heard anyone who's seriously studied classical music saying its reverence is unwarranted. I'm not trying to have a dig at you, I'm genuinely interested in why you hold this opinion.
Great post, I agree with it and I don't even listen to classical music. Saying that "It is the most sophisticated music ever written. Even most progressive music which is fairly complicated by contemporary standards is intellectually dull when compared to for example pieces like Bach's Kunst der Fuge. The best craftsmen tend to make the best products, think of this what you will." is a controversial statement, even if you backpedalled it a bit, but I wholeheartedly agree. I snobbishly never subscribed to the "all music is equal and beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and was always quite annoyed that people would argue that there's no good or bad music, it's all subjective.
-
After contemplating my answer to this thread for the past few days, I am confident in my choice as the all-time best piece of music ever written: Poison's I Want Action.
-
I'd have to say something classical - I doubt any rock song will ever stand the test of time like the masters have. Im partial to Mozart, perhaps the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro.
But - if we are talking rock, I nominate Bohemian Rapsody. I would have to say that its the most original and awesome rock song of all time. There is nothing else like it.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
Several reasons why classical music is considered by some to contain the greatest music of all times:
- Just about every aspect of contemporary music was invented in classical music. Just about every chord progression that for instance Dream Theater uses has been used in classical music. Every rhythm and time signature change has been done by Stravinsky and Bartok, every phrasing done by Mozart and Beethoven. There is a reason why modern classical music is largely atonal: the possibilities of tonal music had simply been exhausted near the end of the 19th century: there was literally almost nothing to write that had not been done before. Every theme and harmony had been exploited.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is huge. Classical music is simply all music that was written in close to 4 centuries in all the western world: this is a huge amount of pieces. Combine this with the fact that many classical composers had a far larger output than most modern artists, and that most classical composers were far ahead in terms of raw compositional skill compared to many contemporary musicians, the purely statistical chance of the greatest music being in classical music becomes quite big.
- Connected to the previous point: classical music is extremely varied, much more so than most contemporary music. Compare Debussy to Palestrina and you'll be hard pressed to find any similarities, yet they still exist under the same name. Compare pop to rock to funk to blues and you'll find that they all use rougly the same progressions, all use the minor pentatonic scale heavily, all play in 4/4, all use major/minor tonality, use roughly the same instruments etc. etc.
- It is the most sophisticated music ever written. Even most progressive music which is fairly complicated by contemporary standards is intellectually dull when compared to for example pieces like Bach's Kunst der Fuge. Only the best modern jazz comes close. Now, mere sophistication does not make great music of course, but at least it's an indication that classical composers were craftsmen of the highest degree, and indeed of a degree virtually unseen in contemporary music of any popularity. The best craftsmen tend to make the best products, think of this what you will.
Now, as you said, greatness is a very subjective term, but these are some reasons why some people (myself included) could consider classical music as containing the greatest music ever written.
Eh. I don't understand this bias. :\
Obviously what someone heralds as one of the greatest pieces of music of all time is gonna be subjective, but there's no reason it can't come from any genre or any period in music history.
I agree with this. I think classical music has a sort of reverence attached to it that, for the most part, is pretty unwarranted.
Back in the day, other than simplistic folk music, it simply was the only music in town. And it was still heavily encumbered by rules about what constitutes "proper music" and what not.
Your argument about classical music being the only music in town doesn't quite hold: just like today there were scores of composers in previous centuries. Therefore, what we call classical music now actually consists of the top 0.1-th percentile of the music that was made back in the day: it's not like what we are listening to now was the only music produced back then. Furthermore, J.S. Bach's music for instance was virtually unknown during his lifetime and wasn't performed again until almost a century after his death by rabid enthusiasts, at a time when contemporary music was flourishing. It was thus hardly the only music in town, in fact it had never been in town at all! The same is true for D. Scarlatti, Telemann etc.
About your argument that classical music was encumbered by rules, a lot of classical music was definitely not considered "proper music". Think of Stravinsky's audience wrecking the furniture during the first concert of the Sacre du Printemps, J.S. Bach being fired by churches because his music was "unlisteneable", Brahms being considered extremely old-fashioned, Mahler symphonies being rejected, etc. The fact is that many of these composers were so far ahead of their time that their music was hated: it was quite the opposite of "proper music". Of course some composers conformed to the rules of proper music, but this is fairly rare: our classical composers were mostly the trendsetters of the day. An average composer who simply went with the flow is often not remembered: like scientists composers are remembered because they invented something radically new and were great at it.
I'm wondering: how familiar are you with classical music, have you analyzed many pieces for example? The reason why I am asking is that I've never heard anyone who's seriously studied classical music saying its reverence is unwarranted. I'm not trying to have a dig at you, I'm genuinely interested in why you hold this opinion.
You just said everything I would have wanted to say. Very good post indeed.
-
After contemplating my answer to this thread for the past few days, I am confident in my choice as the all-time best piece of music ever written: Poison's I Want Action.
Sir, I applaud your rare insight.
-
After contemplating my answer to this thread for the past few days, I am confident in my choice as the all-time best piece of music ever written: Poison's I Want Action.
As if it could beat out Fallen Angel.