All for it!
I never thought I liked classical music but then I realised that a lot of music I was listening to had strong classical influences. Music on 4AD, Keith Jarrett’s Koln Concert, soundtracks by Morricone, the Amélie soundtrack etc.
Fast forward to recent years and albums such as Gonzales’ “Solo Piano” series and the entire “Modern Classical” genre (Nils Frahm, Dustin O’Halloran, Max Richter et al) have given many people a new appreciation for classical forms. Then a year ago, I landed a job as the designer and digital content producer for the largest Classical/Jazz FM station here in Sydney. I really don’t know much about classical music still, but I know what I like, and due to my experience as a DJ/Selector for 30 plus years, I can confidently create the station’s weekly Spotify playlist each week knowing it sounds better than many of the programs that are on the air hosted by seasoned (nay, old) presenters.
For anybody interested, my curated playlists are here
5 Likes
I fell asleep watching Grouper at unsound festival.
2 Likes
the thing I find with classical music is that I don’t dislike it but I don’t understand it.
When I listen to dance music, I can tell if it sounds well-produced, I can tell if the groove is propulsive, I can tell if the textures will make my skin tingle and the chords will make me feel a type of way etc. If I listen to r&b and pop, I can tell if a singer is performing well, if I’m convinced by the song, etc. Not everything I enjoy has to be technically proficient, but understanding if it is and in what ways allows me to enjoy it and figure out why I do (or don’t).
But when I listen to classical music, I have no feel for what makes it good. I can react to pretty sounds and chord changes but I don’t have any sense of why one piece is celebrated and another is maligned. I also don’t have any sense of what is exceptional and singular and visionary, because I haven’t trained my ears to recognise the differences within the genre.
12 Likes
That is a superb description.
Perfectly put. I guess having a traditional musical background may help, but as with Shakespeare when people say his stuff is ‘really funny’ I always think that enthusiasts of classical music delight in their knowledge of particular melodic interplay of notes, akin to the Shakespeare fan revelling in word play…
it’s the same thing as when people tell me they don’t get house and techno - “it’s got no words, it all sounds the same” etc. I’ve done enough listening and dancing to be able to spot the difference but I can understand why people don’t get it.
Whereas things like Queen and Bowie, I can tell what they’re going for and I just don’t understand how people can think they’re successful on those terms.
2 Likes
Red Zone, David Morales, dull as dishwater.
4 Likes
Try a bit of Aaron Copeland you dirty heathen
1 Like
Berlin.
1 Like
Fontaines DC. They’re just an Irish Strokes.
3 Likes
Glam Rock (incl Bowie era glam). All ghastly.
4 Likes
The people that bore on about the podcasts they are listening to.
6 Likes
I’m Irish and don’t get them at all… Kinda insulting to the strokes… I asked them before used they be called The Thrills and they flipped out… Lol
1 Like
Ha ha!
1 Like
Ever since he took his shirt off he went downhill
2 Likes
It’s such a broad church. In many ways saying ‘classical’ is like saying you like ‘electronic’ music. Is that house, techno, ambient etc.
I find a lot of the ‘classic’ classical (Mozart et al) intimidating but then stuff like Satie and the like is closer to modern classical (Frahm, Arnaulds), ambient etc.
Also it depends who is playing it. You get the same piece of music played by different orchestras and it can totally change it. Whereas in dance you’re judging the exact same piece of music.
Ps. I hope that doesn’t sound preachy. Not meant to. I spent a chunk of time younger trying to understand it too.
6 Likes
Then again, Satie was kind of an impressionist outlier, most early modern classical is even more intimidating, like Schoenberg, Webern, Hindemith, etc. than stuff from the classical/romantic eras.
The problem I have with classical music in general, is that a lot of it is so alien in terms of its social purpose, and so antiquated in its stylings…it’s just too far removed from anything relevant to modern culture. Like, Mozart was a genius, and I do love his music…but you’re basically listening to party music for aristocrats from the 1700s, practice pieces for the children of noble families, concert music for European elites from centuries ago…I find that kind of stuff more inaccessible than drone/noise music that at least has something in common with the modern expectations and sensibilities.
In my opinion, the more abstract classical music is, the easier it is to enjoy in kind of absolute terms…it kind of rises above the aesthetics of whatever era it was composed. Like Bach, later Beethoven, a lot of the Late Romantic/Early Modern composers who were taking a very structural/systematic approach to composition. The music kind of comes from this academic/abstract void but it is actually easier to relate to AS MUSIC for that reason.
2 Likes
no it’s not preachy at all - in fact its an extension of why I find classical music such an intimidating edifice. When you listen to a 12" house record you can hear it mixed in with other tracks in different ways and at different pitches etc to alter its sound but it’s nowhere near as variable as a conductor/performer’s interpretation of notated classical music. So you can think you like Piece X and then hear it performed in a way that it is wildly different and then be unsure if you originally enjoyed the piece, the performance, the performers or whatever else.
2 Likes
Lou Reed, Nick Cave
1 Like