Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
hah hah ok i do like the multiple quoting. so hm a couple of things.
|
Sorry, for my own edification: is 'hm' another internet abbreviation I'm not used to? In the early days (ie three months ago) I was always wondering what IMHO, IMO, LOL etc were. Then I thought maybe LOL meant lots of love. I was wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
1) please ellaborate on your beethoven experience? i spotted comment that he sort of overshadows other artists? or are there musical reasons? please explain.
|
Right, I have a lot of respect for noumenal and I promised not to diss LvB too much, so I won't. For most of the people on my list, my over-rated tag came from a basic belief that whilst some of their stuff is or was undoubtably good, in no example would I want to listen to anentire LP, because,
in my opinion, they didn't make a coherent one, one that I could tolerate all the way through. That's not to deride their good stuff - The Beatles, for example, had some stuff on
Sgt Pepper and
Revolver that I find quite enjoyable, I freely admit it.
The Beethoven thing is more of a double reason: I believe that in the supposedly 'great' fifth symphony (just to take an example), that many listeners can't honestly say that the final three or four movements are anything like as good as what precedes. Take the famous da da da daaa away and what are you left with in that symphony? In my opinion, filler, essentially. It has been said in a 'net debate somewhere that Haydn was a bubble-gum composer, and that applies to LvB too,
in my opinion. Like the Beatles (to tie in!) I absolutely accept and respect the influence etc, I just don't join in the hyperbole.
The aspect of 'overshadowing' is not a fault I place at the door of LvB in the slightest. To give a personal example, I particularly like Leos Janacek when it comes to classical music. I don't want him to be given the same status as LvB necessarily, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but he's underrated, and one of the reasons, the main reason even, is this: Beethoven gets too much attention, and it diverts time and attention from others. Listen to UK classical radio, for example, and you will hear Beethoven, Bach and Mozart, with a bit of Tchaikovsky and a couple of others almost to the exclusion of every other composer. This doesn't give casual classical listeners the chance to hear much different stuff. Especially sad since many of Janaceks best works do not need a lot of time (sections of 'Taras Bulba', 'Sinfonietta' or the 'Danses LAchienne' can be enjoyed seperately, and the entire works are relatively short).
I understand pressures of advertising, listening figures etc, bu there has to be some scope to play a wider range. Much the same argument can be made about MTV2 playing Green Day 7 or 8 times day - cut it to four and play four unknown bands instead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
2) ive no idea about the pop thing of mr. g cos i never listen to it but last i heard people (who rate/overrate things) wuz callin' him jazz. jazz was pop music during a good chunk of the 20th century anyway. the foo fighters of jazz = diana krall? (& there are many others).
ok. need coffee. gotta go.
|
Well, he and Jamie Cullum get placed in jazz, but let's face it, to the popular media (at least in the UK), the term 'jazz' seems to be synonymous with 'contains saxophone at some point'. They come from a jazz background, but they've moved towards pop. Maybe it's crossover jazz/pop, but it's not 'jazz' in any real way, not even mainstream jazz like, say, Ray Brown (who is underrated in my opinion).
You mention the F** F*******. Dave Grohl comes from the grunge scene, but are the F** F******* grunge? It's a similar thing. In my opinion.
No better reason to fly than coffee!
I may expand and tidy up grammar later.