Distinction between Classical and Non-Classical Piano Music

replies

None taken--I am simply asking questions relating to the question I originally posted, and based upon what others have written.

You may (or may not) delite in knowing I do not enjoy Wikipedia. I find it useful for constants (i.e. formulas, the height of the highest skyscraper). Biographies, measuring what one has accomplished is a harder task, and should imho not be reserved for any jack who thinks he’s up to the challenge.

I find it interesting the challenge of one proving that Classical Music can be determined today, not by future music historians at some indeterminate time in the future. If all pieces could be gauged off other pieces, one might say Debussy sounds like Chopin, only more baroque, like J.S. Bach. Tchaikovsky sounds like Wagner only more systematic…

Terez, I admit I have not studied the background of the classical forefathers in fine detail, but that is not the central question is it? It is defining what is a classical piano piece and what is not. And though I already have answers, I enjoy continuing the conversation.

So that's what this is then--a competition? With all due respect Techneut, I never signed up to compete, and I do not wish to. I only posted this first topic for a discussion, not to keep score.

I will dissapoint you, I don't think I am capable of "new agey piano pieces"

If you read The Mozart Myth’s A critical reassessment it talks about it. I recommend it.

As I state above, I posted a topic that explores what is a classical piano piece and what is not.

I don’t know what I can do to convince you? Give you money? I have tried by writing you and telling your that I was... :?

No bone to pick sir.

Being nosy is a good thing,

Just ask all of the piano composers who have created beautiful works inspired by others!

I don’t think you could. One thing is if you tried it would probably take a real long time.

 

Beethoven was never an apprentice of Mozart. Beethoven arrived in Vienna in 1792. Mozart died in 1791. It is said that he met Mozart when Beethoven was younger and that his intent was to study with Mozart, but obviously that could not have happened unless he was somehow able to channel Mozart's spirit.

Scott

 

Count Waldstein was (through Haydn's hands). :lol:

 

pssh, you say that every time we agree about something! And it should not be all that hard to figure out in the context. :lol:

LOL, my apathy for the First Viennese School is bleeding through, isn't it? I suppose I had gotten that impression from the fact that Haydn knew Mozart when he was very young.

 

Re: replies

You have a thing about money, it seems. I was nonplussed earlier when money suddenly cropped up in your argument. Anyway, nope, I don't want your money. What a strange thing to say.

Now let me be honest with you. Your weird video, and the self-conscious way you presented it, has really put us on the wrong foot with you. It looks for all the world like you're trying to put us in a bad light - all three admins (including the site founder) thought so. Not that we worry about it in any way as it's not at all convincingly done, and we have many friends around the globe who will easily see through this. Still, I can't fathom why you did it and what you think to achieve, except for being eyed with suspicion in these quarters. Does that make sense at all ? Or have we got it all wrong ? If you did it with the idea of helping us, as I think you have suggested, then be aware that few things are more annoying than unsolicited help.

I have to side with Terez in that it looks like you are throwing all manner of irrelevant and sometimes dubious things in the pot. But of course anybody is free to do that, and I will not gripe about it. You'll have to allow me to take the p*ss every now and then though. Not being a scholar, that is all I can do :lol:

Well ok, spoke my mind here. If you have something to explain, then now would be a good time. But maybe you don't, and that is fine too (in that case, the suspicion will remain).

 

I know it's crap, and I also know why he spouted this crap. He has obviously had a good number of people over the years say that they don't like his music. He probably feels that they are ignorant and don't like his music because they don't understand it. So, if he wants to maintain this view, he has to also maintain the reverse, that you must know a piece of music very well to like it. He says that he also doesn't like it when people tell him that they like his music, mostly because he sees himself and a few others as the musical elite, and everyone else as the unwashed masses (and of course he doesn't say that). He doesn't care about your opinion unless you also toss out some detail that shows you are trained, such as a comment about the form or some such.

Which reminds me....Chopin did the same thing. In one of his letters, he tells his friend Tytus about a small private-ish performance, and how he got all sorts of compliments from various people, but one man said 'I have never heard anything written in that form before.' And Chopin tells Tytus, 'I think that man understood me better than anyone else.' :lol: I think Chopin was a little more entitled to be a snob....but he was definitely a snob.

 

I'd like to repeat in public what I just replied to Jack's PM to me.

Jack, please respond in public too. This forum is not just about the admins. One thing we value here is honesty and openness. You still have some explaining to do, if not outright apologizing.

 

I don't suppose we could watch this video? It doesn't seem to be linked on his profile or in his sig.

 

Nope, it's been deleted from YouTube already, after a PM exchange between the film director and Monica. I believe some others here have seen it.

We took it as rather derogatory, and the use of photographs (of Monica, Robert, and me), literal quotes, as well as the dedication to John Robson, are quite out of order.

Thinking about it, I see no future for Jack Pringle on this site unless he explains, apologizes, and bends over backwards.

 

That is indeed strange! There do seem to be a number of people who come around every once in a while with a bone to pick, and you have to wonder if some of them are the same people, especially in a case like this where the person's actions don't make sense otherwise.

 

The dedication to John was really slimy, but to me too the entire video was clearly meant to discredit PS's admins, in spite of the ambivalent setting.

I suspect that Jack Pringle 123 couldn't care less about his/her future here, I mean, I can't see how you can prevent the very same guy (or whoever else) from coming to us under a different persona.

 

Well put. I locked that thread as I wanted to ignore the thing and prevent long discussions. I did not really expect him to be back.

We can't. But we'd probably recognize him by his style...

Anyway I am still interested what he has to say, if anything.

 

reply

This issue has been beaten like a dead horse! And I don't think it relates to this subject but I will say it anyways: I originally made the video to tell new, prospective members that the standards are high at pianosociety. I realize now that such a video was not wanted and I was very stupid not to ask before posting it. I apologize for not asking and if I ruined or partially tarnished the reputations of the admins or any other member I mentioned. I also apologize for the dedication to John Robson.

I used all three of the admins pictures as a visual aid to give people an idea about which site it was. As for the dedication to John Robson, my only intention is to honor his memory.

In which way alf? I did not have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Robson, but I wish I did. I wish I could have asked for his approval to dedicate the video to him, but I would like to say when I die I would rather my name be remembered rather than forgotten, if such a statement can be forgiven for being very profound. I am insulted that you would call my dedication slimy, as it was made in the best of intentions.

At this point, I don't want to talk about this video again, not to mention see it, or let others see it. If this issue could be forgotten.

 

Re: reply

It is indeed ! And so it had to be. A horse is not dead until we say it is.
You need to realize that you can't step on our toes like this without getting the full works.

No it does not relate to the subject but we think nothing of going wildly OT when needed.

What makes you think that
a) such a thing is needed
b) people would watch your video
c) and if they did, would take it seriously ?

You're talking bollocks anyway. One doesn't have to be an exceptionally gifted pianist to be admitted here. What we expect is musicality, dedication, sufficient preparation, reasonable accuracy, and a pleasant sound. There are plenty of amateurs here who can achieve that without being world-class pianists. I don't think you have lurked around here long enough to see that.

Don't flatter youself ... it would take a bit more to ruin or tarnish our reputation.
But I appreciate your apologies.

That may be so, but that was not the impression it made. I know of al least one other regular PS member here who was quite distressed by the way you went about it, to the point of wishing you gone as soon as possible.

Pardon me, but is not for you to feel insulted here. Actually, after the insinuating tone of your video, this dedication added insult to injury, making rather a mockery of John's memory. I accept you probably did not intend it this way, but again, that was the impression it made. For God's sake, will you think before you write something for all the world to see....

Fair enough. I think everything has been said by now. Go forth and sin no more.....

 

I didn't really feel like reading through all the previous posts, but here's my opinion... "Classical" can't really be defined objectively because it's far too ambiguous and has obviously evolved through time. Now if we get more specific to say... Romanticism or Minimalism, we can say things like "the composition must contain a wide tonic range and explore unorthodox harmonic progressions" or "it must rely on repetitive and conservative structure."

I think the REAL reason the starter of this thread posted this topic was to compare modern "youtube composers" with the ones on this forum or even the legendary ones (I'm not talking skill-wise, but taste-wise). I think we can all point out the difference between the repetitive "1-4-5" type of music that novice composers tend to limit themselves to, compared to... say.. Bach's fugues. I know we've all seen the pianist/composer who just repeats arpeggios in one hand and and bangs out octaves in the other.

This isn't to say that classical music is limited to the elitists, but due to the popularity of predictable and overplayed harmonic progressions from the pop genre often dubbed as "classical," we must draw the line somewhere, else there'd be no reason to discriminate different forms of music under different names, we'd just call it "music."