Greatest piece of music of *ALL* times

[In The Name Of Rudess]

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.

[Mosh]

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.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

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.

[rumborak]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Sycsa]

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. 

[bosk1]

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.

[Elite]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.