Best Ever Soundtracks

[BigJon]

Originally posted by barfle:
It's not "Shap[b]ely", it's "Shapley."
[/b]

So, how do you pronounce it? First syllable rhymes with tap, second syllable like flee?


BigJon (Not so hard to pronounce)

[Nicole Marie]

Christ... I'll never get it right.

[Shapley]

BigJon,

Yes, That's the correct pronunciation.

The Olde English Spelling is Shapleigh. I'm not sure how it was pronounced back there, but the American pronunciation is the same with either spelling.

V/R
Shapley

[Eugene_again]

Alan Menken?

[Nicole Marie]

Just found this article and thought it may help clear it up a bit: http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=65vw01

[OperaTenor]

Hi Y.R.H.,

I just read the article. I found it interesting the author didn't go after Zappa while he was at it(albeit he may find Zappa legitimate, even with his "low" background).
I found the article to be positively dripping with the kind of attitude B.com claims to rebel against.
It seemed as though if you weren't a composer he liked, you weren't composing "classical" music.

(okay, so maybe I'm on the wrong thread with this bit)

To me, it seems as though classical music should either be considered in a very narrow, or a very broad sense. Anything in between is extremely subjective.
It's either a name for the classical period(late 18th thru mid/late 19th centuries - at least that's what I recall from my music history education), or it's as Shos puts it, anything that can be written down and reproduced live as the composer intended without adding any subjective aspects( a certain performer, not engineered to produce a specific sound, etc.).

I found the author's attitude a bit offensive. To me, that kind of condescending rhetoric is exactly what puts people off of "classical" music. It should be no wonder why the genre struggles so much in this day and age.

Just my dos centavos.

<small>[ 09-03-2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Nicole Marie]

I don't think that is what he was saying. He was paying respect to artists like Paul, Costello etc for attempting to work in classical music. His line where he said, "Just because you hear a violin does not mean it's classical music." sums it up.

For most audiences they hear something sort of like classical and toss it in that category when it may not be. To give all forms of music the respect it deserves audiences have to understand where the line is. Give rock the respect it deserves by understanding what is rock music. Same with classical, punk, jazz etc. That's the point of his article, we do not do justice to any form of music when we do not understand where the line and "walls" are in music.

Side note: I personally am a classical snob. If I have to play one more film request my head is going to fall off. But don't get me wrong, I think we need some of the cross over music to attract new audiences. But people MUST understand that not everything Beethoven Radio plays is classical. We play cross over all the time. And that's just what that music is... cross over. It's a mix of different styles. Audiences must understand that, if only for the simple reasons of paying respect to the music itself.

[OperaTenor]

Hmmm. Perhaps I'll reread it. I got the opposite impression from what I read.

Here's the quintessential anecdotal example of why I feel it's dangerous to get too uppity about classical music:

Aren't Strauss waltzes considered Classical music(that is, as not only being composed in the Classical period, but also by your definition)?

Weren't they simply popular music in Vienna at the time they were first written and performed?

By the author's criteria, from my understanding of it, Strauss waltzes aren't classical music.

[Nicole Marie]

I don't think this will ever get solved.

It comes down to what is on the sheet music. It's not about popularity. There are certain rules you have to follow when writing classical music. (Chord progressions, inversions, keys etc) When composers break away from those rules, you start to get different forms of music. I (and I think this author b/c he is a composer) listen to music in a different way. I can hear how the piece is structured, what the voices will do, how they are supposed to move. When they don't follow these rules, you no longer have classical music.

Audiences do not have to run out and take a theory class to understand this. Just listen. Most people can hear the difference in a Metallica tune vs. Mozart. Bond vs. Brahms. Bela Fleck and Meyers "Music for Two" CD vs. Debussy. They are all different and for the sake of ALL styles that needs to be understood.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Nicole Marie:
When they don't follow these rules, you no longer have classical music.

If that's true, then anything written from the Romantic period on isn't classical music, unless it fits the harmonic rules of the Classical period?

Perhaps I'm having trouble with the semantics....

[Nicole Marie]

The Romantic period, yes we did see a break away but the majority of composers follow the majority of basic rules. But yes they did begin to lay the ground work for the neo classical period.

That's why we have periods in music. People break away. But we all agree the majority of the basic rules were followed.

[OperaTenor]

Now, I don't want to bait you, but....

If certain soundtrack music strictly adheres to the rules and form of classical music, then does it not qualify?

Have a great weekend.



<small>[ 09-03-2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Nicole Marie]

Yes OT. As I said in the past there are some soundtrack composers that follow the rules and yes some soundtracks do fall in that catagory.

But some don't. And even worse some sound tracks follow the rules but can not stand on their own without the movie. Passion of Christ comes to mind, the music is a great addition to the movies but will bore you to tears on it's own.

[rwcrooks]

OT,

Here's the deal. Someone (or a group of them) decided what they thought classical music was and put down these rules and there you go.

Had they waited 50 years to codify the rules, they would have been different. But as they now stand, we are stuck with 'rules' that were written before music evolved into what it is today.

Sort of like somebody writing down rules about what television is (back in the pre-color days) stating that it is a broadcast black and white picture of so many lines resolution...and then never updating the definition due to changes in the format due to color, HDTV, satellite, etc.

Nicole will continue to call classical music on thing, the majority of the population will continue to call it something more based on their frames of reference. Neither is right or wrong.

And as for music not standing on its own and boring us to tears, there's lots of classical music that does that for me.

[OperaTenor]

(Psst, Rich, Yeah, I know, it's just as you say. Just having a good time stirring the pot & see how many people I can antagonize into joining a music discussion.)

[stever]

I am not as well trained as most of you, but I believe that classical music is similar to classical literature: the great works stand the test of time; dreck does not. Some music considered popular today will be conssidered 'classical' by future generations; most will die forgotten (bye Brittany). I realize this is just my opinion, and again it's based on my limited understanding of music.

Very few of my friends listen to classical, claiming it puts them to sleep. For fun I put on something rousing (Holst's Mars, Dvorak's New World Symphony) and crank it to Rock and Roll volume. No sleeping now!

For the purists, perhaps, there is one definition of classical. For me it is about music that can be listened to for its own sake. Very rarely can I listen to Rock that way, yet I have classical CDs that I have played hundreds of time and I never grow bored with them. I personally don't much care for for music with lyrics. I like to let the instruments do the talking. Take the lyrics out of a lot of popular music and you have an unwieldy mess.

Love this thread BTW.

[mystakin]

Nicole,
I was listening to some Mozart Concerto...not sure which one. At any rate, I was curious on your views on Mozart's works, such as his concertos, etc. When I was listening to one piece, I just had a thought....an "apostrophe" if you will

Would you consider some (or most) of his pieces as "musak" for that time period?

Btw, as far as musicals...would you mind playing a selection from the Phantom?? (just kidding!!)

How does everyone feel about The Nightmare Before Christmas? I know it isn't classical music, but I really like it as far as musicals are concerned (or is this not considered a "true" musical)

Thanks for all the info Nicole. It makes for very interesting reading!

[mmichaelson]

Ok. So who DOES perform the piece from Chocolat. . .is it Johnny Depp on the guitar or not? Dan thought that it might be. Does anyone have the cd who can verify who the performer is on track one???

[RC]

I have the CD and I'll see if I can remember to look up the performer when I get out to my car.

Johnny reportedly learned guitar specifically for the movie but come on! I can play guitar but not like THAT and I've been at it for awhile.

Even so, his looks are still enough for me...uh oh...here I go again on the hot guy thing

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Myst-

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I just saw your post.

When I first played Mozart, I thought, "This is the most wild, fun, difficult and exciting thing I've ever played!" But many Mozart pieces later... it's all becomes the same. If you can play 16th notes really fast, then you can play Mozart.

But the trick is the way he pharses and inverts his melodies. That still makes it exciting!

When I listen to him, yeah, I could see the Musak reference. Only because he borrowed so much from his other works that it all starts to run together. He is boring and exciting at the same time. Exciting because he can take one melody in a piece and re-arrange it in 100 differenet ways that you could never imagine. But boring because Mozart never strays to far from that one melody he uses in a piece. It's not like Mahler who loved to mess with time changes and place a variety of melodies in one piece. But that's what makes Mahler, Mahler and Mozart Mozart and why we love them for what they are.