Well PQ you have to tell me what the topic is and which way you're arguing (a debate being two opposing opinions taking turns presenting arguments and demolishing the arguments presented). You pick the topic and I'll let you know whether I think I'm up to it.
Which composers are good, which are bad, what you like what you don't like etc.
But most people on here only know about popular music.
I should have said that this debate would be about classical music.
Or music composition and performance.
There are few classical music buffs that frequent this forum, but not too many performers. Is there something you'd like to talk about? Post a specific question and I'm sure you'll get some bites.
While I do own a bit of classical and have a potted history with it I don't think I'll be up to your speed. Sorry.
One never knows until one tries! Go ahead and post a question, and see what happens. I've tried a few times to get discussions going about classical music, without much success. Maybe you'll have more luck than I did...
I don't like Chopin - his pieces sound like keyboard exercises, more about the dexterity of the pianist and less about evoking an emotion through music.
I have my Chopin phases. The technical displays can get tiresome, it's true, especially with certain performers. (Listening to Pollini play the Etudes can put me to sleep, primarily because it sounds like Pollini himself is asleep...) When I'm going through a pro-Chopin phase, it's because of his wild harmonies rather than the virtuosity (though that can be impressive too!) or the melodies.
No he wouldn't. All the bands he was in had 'The' in the name. And besides, his voice was contralto, so he would have been in some effeminate hair band.
Lol, ok.
As for chopin, some of his pieces were intended to be exersices, but i don't know how you could say that about pieces such as waltz pollionaise.
Chopin has to be recognised in musical history for taking chromaticism further, and not in the schuman kind of way.
Ok, Im not a genius myself.
My favorite composers also include Debussy and Eric Satie.
why is this butterfly?
I'd be interested to know which Debussy pieces the book cites as precursors to ambient music. Most of the works that strike me as describe-able in ambient terms (like the piano music from the 1890s) come slightly after the corresponding Satie pieces I can think of (like the Sarabandes, which are from the late 1880s). Of course, Debussy had the advantage of being well-known, at least among certain musical circles. Satie was still an absolute nobody.
Thats really interesting, I can see perhaps with satie how it might originate, but not with debussy.
I would need to know more about ambient music to see how they relate.
You like minimalism?
Debbusy was'nt minimalist.
Satie wasn't either really, but he influenced what became minimalist.
Main minimalism occurred in the 1960's with Riech and Glass.
Like I said I'm not familiar with Debussy, but pieces like Satie's Gymnopedies seem minimalist to me (I've never formally studied music, just read way too much). Phil Glass's stuff is less minimalist in a sense - it can be so dense, if repetitious. I loved Koyaanisqatsi (saw the movie bought the album - saw him perform it live at the Sydney Opera House in 2000).
That organ just transports me. I honestly get shivers up my spine just thinking about it....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace
