Classical music

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Is classical music a higher form of music than rock and pop music? Classical music certainly is more complex. However...I always wonder why the rock musicians, pop star and rappers are millionaires. Most of them don't even know how to read music. They don't spend years taking lessons and seem to master their instruments.


Why is it that the rock stars are the millionaires?

[BDunnell]

Is classical music a higher form of music than rock and pop music?

Some people certainly think it has more cultural value. Look at the way Jeremy Paxman sneers at any team on University Challenge that shows any knowledge of heavy metal, yet doesn't know as much about classical music. A lot of people would agree with his assessment. Personally, I don't. However, it is hard to argue that S Club 7, no matter how popular they may have been, have as much worth as Chopin.

[Hazell B]

However, it is hard to argue that S Club 7, no matter how popular they may have been, have as much worth as Chopin.

Depends on how you define 'worth'.

Rock stars have more income becaues they earn it from their popularity. The classical bods aren't really known for filling stadiums or selling CDs like Madonna. Market forces dictate earnings, plus classical people don't tend to play their own music so can't earn royalties as both composer and singer, etc. Being dead doesn't help, either :p :

Paxman can sniff all he likes, I expect he'd still look more stupid than the average student if he had been forced to answer the questions at their age. He knows it and they know it - it's just his act for the TV.

Classical isn't higher, just less popular. If somebody thinks that makes them better than everyone else because they know a bit of Mozart, that's just sad. Some people think the 1812 is fine classical music, thus showing their lack of knowledge in the same way as saying Shakin' Stevens is quality rock and roll or Keanu Reeves can act.

Now, bearing in mind a brass band had me in tears of joy the other week at an open air concert, I feel it's time I stop posting :p :

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Some people certainly think it has more cultural value. Look at the way Jeremy Paxman sneers at any team on University Challenge that shows any knowledge of heavy metal, yet doesn't know as much about classical music. A lot of people would agree with his assessment. Personally, I don't. However, it is hard to argue that S Club 7, no matter how popular they may have been, have as much worth as Chopin.

It's hard to ague that S Club 7 have as much worth as most other pop and rock musicians, never mind the great classical composers.

Is the reason classical isn't as popular because you need to understand music to appreciate it fully?

Or is it more to do with the image that surrounds classical music? Is it more of an art rather than entertainment.

Who do people regard as the better musician, Sergei Rachmaninov or John Lennon?

[BDunnell]

Depends on how you define 'worth'.

Rock stars have more income becaues they earn it from their popularity. The classical bods aren't really known for filling stadiums or selling CDs like Madonna. Market forces dictate earnings, plus classical people don't tend to play their own music so can't earn royalties as both composer and singer, etc. Being dead doesn't help, either :p :

I wasn't actually talking about financial worth, but there's no doubt that it has an influence on how people view their wider cultural worth, if there is such a thing.


Paxman can sniff all he likes, I expect he'd still look more stupid than the average student if he had been forced to answer the questions at their age. He knows it and they know it - it's just his act for the TV.

Of course. I was using it as an example of what some people (and I'd imagine Paxman is one of them, no matter what act he puts on for the cameras) think, because there are plenty who do believe that classical music is automatically more valuable to our cultural lives than any pop music — certainly than any recent pop music.


If somebody thinks that makes them better than everyone else because they know a bit of Mozart, that's just sad.

I agree completely.

This is a really interesting topic with lots of aspects, certainly.

[Hazell B]

Who do people regard as the better musician, Sergei Rachmaninov or John Lennon?

That's a very unfair question. They both have times and places in the normal, everyday life of anyone who watches films, listens to music and sees TV adverts.

It's like asking which car is best, an F1 BMW or a Focus. Doesn't matter what the answer is, we would all drive the Focus if they were the only choices :)

Classical music isn't something most people would sit and listen to whilst doing nothing else. It needs either a conversation, movie or some other extra with it for today's brain to enjoy it. It doesn't talk to us like a modern musician can, if you know what I mean.

[BDunnell]

Is the reason classical isn't as popular because you need to understand music to appreciate it fully?

I think part of it is generational. We aren't exposed to it as much today as were people 100 years ago, because we get to hear all sorts of other forms of music. Today, the vast, vast majority of radio stations don't play any classical music.

People may think that you need to have a deeper understanding of music to understand classical, but others would say that about much modern music. Personally, I get pleasure from both classical and modern music without knowing much about either, and that's fine for me.



Or is it more to do with the image that surrounds classical music? Is it more of an art rather than entertainment.

Could be. A lot of younger people may see classical music as dull, impenetrable and so on, just as may view Radio 4 as being dull and impenetrable. I bet some will come round to it in time, though!



Who do people regard as the better musician, Sergei Rachmaninov or John Lennon?

I don't really have a view on this, because I'm not much of a Lennon or Beatles fan, but see why others are, and I don't know enough about classical music to have opinions on it.

[BDunnell]

Classical music isn't something most people would sit and listen to whilst doing nothing else. It needs either a conversation, movie or some other extra with it for today's brain to enjoy it. It doesn't talk to us like a modern musician can, if you know what I mean.

Oddly, even though I'm not really a classical music buff, I can't listen to modern music while doing nothing else, but I can classical, just as I love having speech-based radio on in the background. For some reason, I only ever listen to modern music while I'm walking along.

Anyway, I know exactly what you mean about modern music 'talking to us' more than classical. Of course, the argument works both ways, but to most people of younger generations all sorts of forms of modern music are clearly more relevant, hence their popularity.

[AndyRAC]

What about Prog Rock, very classical-like, with complex compositions?

[BDunnell]

What about Prog Rock, very classical-like, with complex compositions?

You see, I find prog rock rather pretentious and more than a little amusing, but I'm probably of the wrong generation for it. It obviously had its place for many.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What about Prog Rock, very classical-like, with complex compositions?

It's complex compared with your normal 3 chord rock song but technically it is still not as advanced as most classical pieces.

But then most people would say that The Beatles are better than Pink Floyd.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Classical music isn't something most people would sit and listen to whilst doing nothing else. It needs either a conversation, movie or some other extra with it for today's brain to enjoy it. It doesn't talk to us like a modern musician can, if you know what I mean.

Some people may find that classical music talks to them. (in a musical way ;) )

[gadjo_dilo]

Is classical music a higher form of music than rock and pop music?
I'm not in the position to comment but I see that classic music is still popular in the 21th century. What we call " modern music " has still to prove it after 200-300 years. So who knows? Good music resist through time, bad music is forgotten in a few years. But usually you can't make good music without knowing notes and the elementary laws of composition.

However...I always wonder why the rock musicians, pop star and rappers are millionaires. Most of them don't even know how to read music. They don't spend years taking lessons and seem to master their instruments.
For the same reason that guys who can hardly be named as actors like Schwarzenegger, Steven Seagal, Jackie Chan, earn more than a guy from Royal Shakespeare Company.


Why is it that the rock stars are the millionaires?
If rock had been invented before the 20th century none of its exponents would have been millionairs. For the simple reason that on that time music wasn't an industry. At the same time if guys like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, were still alive they would be incredibly rich.
Some say classic music isn't popular but right this year I noticed that tickets to Enescu festival ( of classic music of course ) were sold as quick as those for Rolling Stones and better than those for the more popilar Black Eyed Peas, Pink, etc.


If somebody thinks that makes them better than everyone else because they know a bit of Mozart, that's just sad.
Somehow you're right. But I think it's probably sadder to don't know a bit of Mozart. ( although in my opinion the purpose of music isn't to be known but to be enjoyed )

It doesn't talk to us like a modern musician can, if you know what I mean.
I don't know what you mean. I don't think modern musicians are interested to communicate anything to us.

[janneppi]

There was take on classical music in a Finnish internet funny site while ago.
"It isn't unusual for a new music student that they can't name any of albums by Raptori, are unsure of the nationality of Dr Alban, or even confuse How much is the fish with Move you ass" says classical music genius Seponheikki

Seponheikki also believes that one can't get the same spiritual-intellectual inspiration from Mozart's sonet than let's say Electic by Leila K.

On the other hand it's unfair to compare bach's fuga to No Limits by 2 Unlimited because Bach couldn't rap and the song doesn't even have a chorus Seponheikki adds.

:p :

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm not in the position to comment but I see that classic music is still popular in the 21th century. What we call " modern music " has still to prove it after 200-300 years. So who knows? Good music resist through time, bad music is forgotten in a few years.


Interesting point :up: I think that there will be a few 'modern' songs that will last hundreds of years. 'Johnny B Goode' has lasted for 50years ;)


But usually you can't make good music without knowing notes and the elementary laws of composition.


I don't know how much Paul McCartney knows about composition, but he can't read music and he's one of the most popular song writers of the past 40 years.

[Hondo]

My parents played a lot classical music on the record player at the house, especially on Sundays, and it is great background music. However, Dad also had and could play a saxaphone and clarinet and during informal get togethers with friends, they would jam with swing and big band stuff. When we were old enough, it was decided my sister and I would play the guitar. Guitars were purchased (acoustic) and lessons were attended. At one point, while Fiero was being scolded for his lack of dilligence in practice, he pointed out that Twinkle Twinkle Little Star sucked. I wanted to play You're Gonna Miss Me by the 13th Floor Elevators. Astute man that my instructor was, he threw away the books and started writing me the rock and roll tunes in musical notation. I don't think "tab" existed then and I'm glad it didn't. Jon is correct about many not being able to read music anymore, they were taught using tab.

I'm guessing here, but perhaps as we became a more mobile and active society, our music also changed from something to sit and listen to into something to participate in. Lets face it jazz, big band, swing, and rock and roll all makes you want to move. Put some classical music on and watch the people listening to it. Thats all they are doing. Put the faster stuff on and before you know it, without thinking about it, they are catching and holding a beat with a foot, finger, head nod, or something. It's music you can participate in.

Hazell, get a Les Paul guitar that will hold and sustain a note until next week, learn 6, 2-note power chords, and you too could be a heavy metal star.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

. When we were old enough, it was decided my sister and I would play the guitar. Guitars were purchased (acoustic) and lessons were attended. At one point, while Fiero was being scolded for his lack of dilligence in practice, he pointed out that Twinkle Twinkle Little Star sucked. I wanted to play You're Gonna Miss Me by the 13th Floor Elevators. Astute man that my instructor was, he threw away the books and started writing me the rock and roll tunes in musical notation. I don't think "tab" existed then and I'm glad it didn't. Jon is correct about many not being able to read music anymore, they were taught using tab.


Hazell, get a Les Paul guitar that will hold and sustain a note until next week, learn 6, 2-note power chords, and you too could be a heavy metal star.


Maybe the nature of the guitar (which is used in most rock songs) means that you don't need to be able to read music in order to master it.

I can read music and name all the notes an a piano but I can only name a few notes an a guitar, yet I can play more songs on guitar.

[gadjo_dilo]

I don't know how much Paul McCartney knows about composition, but he can't read music and he's one of the most popular song writers of the past 40 years.

That's why I began my phrase with "usually".
Anyway, without being in denial of mr. McCartney abilities, I made it clear that popularity isn't necessarily related to value.

Again, when I talked about how much music may resist in time I thought of long periods, like hundreds years. Just now I'm at work and somebody plays an old CD of Smokie. The young ones are turning their noses but those who were raised with such music are in a good mood. They accept it's not great but it's the nostalgia of their ( lost ? :laugh: ) youth.

[BDunnell]

I don't think modern musicians are interested to communicate anything to us.

I think you're wrong about that, both in a literal sense, in that many good songs of the modern era do exactly that, and figuratively. For most people of my generation, for instance, pop music in all its forms is more relevant, whatever the specifics of the lyrics.

[BDunnell]

I'm guessing here, but perhaps as we became a more mobile and active society, our music also changed from something to sit and listen to into something to participate in.

What an excellent point. I think you're right.

In addition, music has become less elitist. In the 19th century and earlier, how many people got to enjoy the music that was being produced? The early 20th century changed all that, for various reasons.

[Hondo]

Maybe the nature of the guitar (which is used in most rock songs) means that you don't need to be able to read music in order to master it.

I can read music and name all the notes an a piano but I can only name a few notes an a guitar, yet I can play more songs on guitar. Thats a good possibility. You can make a lot of different sounds holding the same finger position at different frets, or by lifting one finger, or by moving over one string, or even retuning the strings to different notes.

Plus it's a lot easier to sit on the sofa strumming a guitar while watching tv than it is to sit there and strum a piano.

[Hazell B]

Hazell, get a Les Paul guitar that will hold and sustain a note until next week, learn 6, 2-note power chords, and you too could be a heavy metal star.

You're applying for manager and roadie, aren't you?
Job's yours and Sweetie's :D

[fandango]

I think that yes, Classical music is a higher form of music than rock, owing to having a longer line of development and more sophisticated aims. However, that doesn't make it better. It's like trying to say this colour is better than any other colour.

There are times I want to listen to a Bach Lute Suite, and other times when it has to be Patti Smith. In the end I can only agree with Pavarotti, who said there were only two types of music, good and bad.

[AndyRAC]

It's complex compared with your normal 3 chord rock song but technically it is still not as advanced as most classical pieces.

But then most people would say that The Beatles are better than Pink Floyd.

Maybe, but I wouldn't, personally I can think of several bands that are far superior to The Beatles, but you're not allowed to say that, as it is blasphemy.

[gadjo_dilo]

I think you're wrong about that, both in a literal sense, in that many good songs of the modern era do exactly that, and figuratively. For most people of my generation, for instance, pop music in all its forms is more relevant, whatever the specifics of the lyrics.

Well, I don't think that either classic or modern music "talk " to us. But who knows, if I don't feel that Robbie Williams, Cheeky Girls, Take That, O-zone, etc. have a special message for me I might be just an insensitive donkey.

[Ranger]

Why is it that the rock stars are the millionaires?

Supply and demand, buddy. It's for this reason that male castrati (men who had been castrated as children in order to maintain a desired male soprano - that always makes everyone squeam :p : ) were always well paid in the time of classical music, whilst many great composers remembered today were still dirt-poor when they died.

[gadjo_dilo]

What an excellent point. I think you're right.

In addition, music has become less elitist. In the 19th century and earlier, how many people got to enjoy the music that was being produced? The early 20th century changed all that, for various reasons.

But I think in the past, opera houses still have a gallery where ordinary people could enjoy performances.
On the other hand I think that masses still had their own "popular" music, the one that was sung at different events or celebrations, fairs, pubs, etc.
I also presume that in every country there are saved old folkloric songs that were and continue to be popular with the masses.

[Rollo]

If rock had been invented before the 20th century none of its exponents would have been millionairs. For the simple reason that on that time music wasn't an industry. At the same time if guys like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, were still alive they would be incredibly rich.

When Gluck died in 1787 the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Joseph II, employed Mozart as his "chamber composer" at the rate of 800 florins/year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/austria/article/0,,1747039,00.html

At the time of the Proclamation of Australian Currency in 1788, the Austrian Florin was tarriffed at £1/1/6 or £1.07.

If you'll assume the standard rate of inflation since the end of the Roman Empire at a paltry 4%, then Mozart's wage in 1787 works our to be £4,784,189.91/year.

£4 million a year is hardly what you'd call scrounging is it? ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

£4 million a year is hardly what you'd call scrounging is it? ;)

Sadly they say he died rather poor and was dumped into a mass grave for paupers.

[BDunnell]

Well, I don't think that either classic or modern music "talk " to us. But who knows, if I don't feel that Robbie Williams, Cheeky Girls, Take That, O-zone, etc. have a special message for me I might be just an insensitive donkey.

Not necessarily the best examples!

By the way, though, I ought to add that music doesn't talk to me very much either.

[BDunnell]

But I think in the past, opera houses still have a gallery where ordinary people could enjoy performances.
On the other hand I think that masses still had their own "popular" music, the one that was sung at different events or celebrations, fairs, pubs, etc.
I also presume that in every country there are saved old folkloric songs that were and continue to be popular with the masses.

Very true.

[BeansBeansBeans]

In the end I can only agree with Pavarotti, who said there were only two types of music, good and bad.

Hendrix said the same.

They were both right, as are you :up:

[tinchote]

I don't think the discussion makes sense from a "taste" point of view.

But then you have technical issues, and there you can usually find big differences between classical music (although this is too a general term) and modern popular music. Most classical music is more complicated in its combination of harmonies than popular music; an orchestra with 40 members requires more skill and preparation to sound ok than a band with 4 members, two/three of them (bass and drums, sometimes rithmic guitar) who are playing very basic stuff.

[SOD]

here's an interesting read

http://home.online.no/~corneliu/npq.htm

[Hondo]

I don't think the discussion makes sense from a "taste" point of view.

But then you have technical issues, and there you can usually find big differences between classical music (although this is too a general term) and modern popular music. Most classical music is more complicated in its combination of harmonies than popular music; an orchestra with 40 members requires more skill and preparation to sound ok than a band with 4 members, two/three of them (bass and drums, sometimes rithmic guitar) who are playing very basic stuff.

Interesting point. One of the reasons the Beatles quit touring was their music was becoming more complex, requiring more musicians and instruments and, at the time, would have been a logistics nightmare. But now it's not uncommon to see rock and roll concerts with 2 or more drummers, back up vocalists, a piano, an organ, horns, more guitarists than just a lead and rythmn. The guitar players out here know that the various electric guitars have different tones and sounds and there seems to be more movement on stage to use them all and blend them.

Wonder if we're coming full circle?

[Hondo]

here's an interesting read

http://home.online.no/~corneliu/npq.htm


Outstanding! I like it.

[SOD]

Is classical music a higher form of music than rock and pop music? Classical music certainly is more complex. However...I always wonder why the rock musicians, pop star and rappers are millionaires. Most of them don't even know how to read music. They don't spend years taking lessons and seem to master their instruments.


Why is it that the rock stars are the millionaires?

ever seen nevermInd ther Buzzcocks, there are many destitute rockstars from the 1970s who provide us with cheap laughter ;)

seriously, which modern day composer is raking it in. In the olden days the king paid to have composers write wonderful tunes, if the king likd the piece then the musical piece became a hit. Nowadays you got to hear the latest film soundtrack to hear new classical music. Wonder wehy people go to hear John Williams (Star wars), The National Symphony Orchestra here will be playing themes from cartoons (simpsons , looney tunes..)

In regards to the virtuoso classical musician, they don't own the pieces that they're playing. The people who own muisc are the record companies, ever wonder why songs get rehashed every 10 years? :p

I wonder what mass media would have done for Mozart in the late 18th century?

"It took the wolrd of music 500 years to create a Mozart and those schmucks (Rolling Stone) think they've uncovered one every two weeks!"

[Storm]

Good topic this....

I had never listened much to western classical music (although had heard a fair bit of the Indian classical variety - which is more solo instrumental than ensemble orchestra stuff..) when I really got into music - rock/metal to be precise.

I would call myself a heavy metal buff normally but I do enjoy a bit of classical stuff as well....also the fact that many metal guitarists (neo-classical etc) have found inspiration in 19th century classical compositions made me listen to some of that stuff.

Can't say that classical would be my first choice but its better in every respect than boy band/mainstream pop.


Fiero, with that knowledge Hazell could become a punk rock star :p :
but I think metal ( 80s especially) is a bit more complex than just strumming power chords.

[Sleeper]

here's an interesting read

http://home.online.no/~corneliu/npq.htm
Great article, Zappa knew what he was on about.

As to whether Classical music is a higher form of music than rock or pop then I would have to say, in general, yes. Though the main function of music is to entertain, classical music also challenges the listener that concentrates on what is happening. Many of these pieces can be listened to repeatedly and on each listen you will find something new, this will never happen in anything that you find in the charts today. I have never equated high sales to quality, many bands and "artists" are only their because they conform to the formulas set out long ago by the record companies, I believe that classical, jazz and many of the bands I listen to woul get better sales and a wider audiance, even if only slightly, if they were just given a chance to be heard by more than just a select group of fans.

However, I'm sure many of you that have seen my posts in the "What are you listening to now?" thread will have guessed that I am a Prog fan. Many of these bands, whether they were the original pioneers likeYes, Genesis, King Crimson, Floyd, etc, or the modern exponents like Pain Of Salvation, Dream Theater, Kayo Dot, White Willow, The Mars Volta, etc, have a level of musical ability, both in terms of playing as well as composing, that can match the likes of the classical composers, even if they dont use it that often (normally because its not necessary). You dont have to be an expert on music theory to "get" this either, god knows I'm not even close to one, its quite easy to hear the large difference in technical ability required by classical/prog/jazz and your average pop/rock group or singer/rapper. I'd also like to note that everything I have just said has absolutely nothing to do with taste, which is completely subjective and down to what the indavidual wants to listen to.

To BDunnell, yes some prog can be quite pretentious, ELP and Yes being the worst culprits of this (and I dont like either myself), but they dont hold a candle to 50 cents and those like him.

[BDunnell]

I don't think the discussion makes sense from a "taste" point of view.

But then you have technical issues, and there you can usually find big differences between classical music (although this is too a general term) and modern popular music. Most classical music is more complicated in its combination of harmonies than popular music; an orchestra with 40 members requires more skill and preparation to sound ok than a band with 4 members, two/three of them (bass and drums, sometimes rithmic guitar) who are playing very basic stuff.

The way I for one listen to music — with little appreciation of how it is made — means that this goes over my head when I do so. Of course, it's more obvious that a classical piece is more technically complicated than your average pop song, but there are plenty of pieces of technically-complex modern music where the complexity and skill are probably wasted on the average listener.

I'm reminded of a review a friend once did of a book of decidedly average aviation photographs. The photographer's response went on about how difficult many of the shots were to get. The fact was that the reader neither knows nor cares about that, and I think the same can be true of music. How it sounds to you is the important thing.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Where music is concerned, technical ability is not the be-all and end-all.

Teenage Kicks by The Undertones can be played by any idiot with two hands and a guitar but it's an infinitely better song than anything by, say, Dream Theatre or Steve Vai.

[Storm]

Technical ability can never be a substitute for melody which is basis of any good music.....but it helps if you can respect musicians for their musicianship as well as their music :)

[BDunnell]

Technical ability can never be a substitute for melody which is basis of any good music.....but it helps if you can respect musicians for their musicianship as well as their music :)

I suppose that depends on how important music is to you. For me, it doesn't go much further than liking a piece of music or not. I don't even know what a good piece of classical music is — it's nothing more than lovely background music for me. Others can call me a philistine if you like!

[tinchote]

The way I for one listen to music — with little appreciation of how it is made — means that this goes over my head when I do so. Of course, it's more obvious that a classical piece is more technically complicated than your average pop song, but there are plenty of pieces of technically-complex modern music where the complexity and skill are probably wasted on the average listener.

I'm reminded of a review a friend once did of a book of decidedly average aviation photographs. The photographer's response went on about how difficult many of the shots were to get. The fact was that the reader neither knows nor cares about that, and I think the same can be true of music. How it sounds to you is the important thing.

But that's not the point. I like my daughters' drawings a lot more than Picasso, but that doesn't make Picasso worse than my daughters in any sense. There are a lot of technical reasons (which I don't understand, as I am a zero in painting) why Picasso is a great painter.

As I said, "I like it" is not a particularly objective way to measure art. And there are many more or less objective ways to measure art.

[BDunnell]

But that's not the point. I like my daughters' drawings a lot more than Picasso, but that doesn't make Picasso worse than my daughters in any sense. There are a lot of technical reasons (which I don't understand, as I am a zero in painting) why Picasso is a great painter.


I agree, but what I'm saying is that those reasons go over the heads of most. I'm not saying that's right, but I think it is true.



As I said, "I like it" is not a particularly objective way to measure art. And there are many more or less objective ways to measure art.

I'm not saying it is, but in the areas of art that we don't know much about but like bits of, it's as good as many of us are going to get.

[SOD]

Where music is concerned, technical ability is not the be-all and end-all.

Teenage Kicks by The Undertones can be played by any idiot with two hands and a guitar but it's an infinitely better song than anything by, say, Dream Theatre or Steve Vai.

John Peel said that he cried the first time he heard teenage kicks then cried again when he heard Busted's rendition of it.

The Understones could only pull off teenage kicks, in the same way that Steve vai can only pull off his stunt-guitar ;)

[harsha]

Pain of Salvation's Daniel Gildenlow is one of the best vocalists i've heard along with Geoff Tate and Ronnie James Dio

[ShiftingGears]

here's an interesting read

http://home.online.no/~corneliu/npq.htm


Fantastic! Zappa's a legend. His take on censorship of music in the talk show "Crossfire" is also brilliant. Shows up everyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc


Also, the classical and baroque pieces that are remembered now also have those great hooks, like the songs currently that will be remembered in a few hundred years, eg In The Hall Of The Mountain King and Beethovens 5th.

[Sleeper]

Where music is concerned, technical ability is not the be-all and end-all.

Teenage Kicks by The Undertones can be played by any idiot with two hands and a guitar but it's an infinitely better song than anything by, say, Dream Theatre or Steve Vai.

Your right, technical ability is not the be-all and end-all but it is an important set of tools for a musician to get across what they want from music. For me, most punk cant get anything across but anger, and that gets old very fast.

As for your Teenage Kicks coment, thats totally subjective. I find that song incredably dull and not a patch on many of DT's songs, but thats me.

[Sleeper]

Pain of Salvation's Daniel Gildenlow is one of the best vocalists i've heard along with Geoff Tate and Ronnie James Dio
I'd say he's the best, and a stunning musician and composer to boot.

[gadjo_dilo]

I've just thought of something related to the original question "Is classical music a higher form of music than rock and pop music?". You can't perform classical music anywhere, you need special halls with a perfect acoustic. On the other hand pop or rock singers may lose a note but you can't do it on a symphony.

[jso1985]

I don't think because it's more complex it makes it a higher form.
Actually 3 guys with just a guitar, a bass and drums and without any musical training making music could be considered more talented than 40 guys with musical training