new thread idea

Jon Miller · May 10, 2003, 19:45

we have a lot of fairly learned people here

why don't we have a weekly discussion on some interesting topic with the specialisation of members here

than apolyton can be used for spreading knowledge

we could do physics, chemistry, comp sci (probably some soft sciences as well)

what do people think about this"?

Jon Miller

Asher · May 10, 2003, 19:46

Sounds good, but I think a lot of the threads end up doing this anyway.

Or do you mean almost a Q&A type thing, where people can try to refrain from using overly-nerdy words and put things in layman's terms?

Boris Godunov · May 10, 2003, 19:48

None of you cultural simians could maintain my interest enough in a classical music discussion.

Asher · May 10, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
None of you cultural simians could maintain my interest enough in a classical music discussion.

Actually, I'm trying to get into it. But it seems like there's too much to know and most people who are into it are somewhat snobby about it.

Boris Godunov · May 10, 2003, 19:51

We are not snobby about it, you rube.

Nubclear · May 10, 2003, 19:53

The best art is the unknown art.

Spiffor · May 10, 2003, 19:56

I am trying to get into classical for 2 years, with a friend helping me. But it is very difficult, even when your mentors aren't snobbish. It can only be more difficult without actually listening to the musical pieces.

And classical fans sound snobbish when they are listened to by a non-initiated for the same reason a geek sounds like a freak of some sort when he is listened to by a non-geek. The use of a specific language, with specific concerns, about something you know nothing about. THe "snobbishness" comes from the fact that snobs had to be classical fans in the past, hence it stayed in the popular imagery.

MrFun · May 10, 2003, 20:03

Sharing knowledge -- on Apolyton?

Besides -- how would anyone have a chance to glean any information amidst all the shouting that goes on between Apolytoners?

Spiffor · May 10, 2003, 20:05

MrFun :
Actually, I was playing Trivial Pursuit yesterday and owned the game. About half of my answers can be directly related to 'Poly, which taught them to me one way or another

Skanky Burns · May 10, 2003, 20:09

I have a question for Boris anyway.
Is there a story behind "In the Hall of the Mountain King", and if so what is it?

Maniac · May 10, 2003, 20:11

Spiffor, how do you mean, you are "trying to get into" classical music? Do you mean when you hear a piece of music, you try to know the title and composer, or the style and instruments or so?
If so, my suggestion would be to forget all that nonsense. I listen to classical music very often, and recognize lots of it from already having heard it, but with the exception of a few, I never have a clue who has composed it etcetera.

Who cares? It's the music that counts.

MrFun · May 10, 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
MrFun :
Actually, I was playing Trivial Pursuit yesterday and owned the game. About half of my answers can be directly related to 'Poly, which taught them to me one way or another

I was joking -- but that is cool, Spiffor.

Spiffor · May 10, 2003, 20:28

Maniac :
No, I am rather interested by discovering music that pleases me, and avoid the **** that makes most of classical music (like every genre is made of ****). I'm more into grandios music, so of course I love Wagner and most of Beethoven. But my friend had me listen to Mahler (can't remember the exact name of the passage) and it was like crazy. I enjoy the Russian music too, Rachmaninov and Mussorgski first.

But to me, it is difficult to enter classical music in the meaning that I have still trouble understanding the technical achievements of the musicians and the genius inspiration of the music-writers. To me, these achievements are part of the beauty of the music. It helps me focusing on the music itself, rather than considering it to be some background noise

DAVOUT · May 10, 2003, 20:40

Good idea : The Apolytonian Encyclopedia

alva · May 10, 2003, 20:40

Using the imense knowledge idling here about is a great idea

Japher · May 10, 2003, 20:53

Boris; I admire your knowledge of classical music, actually playing in 'quality' orchestras for 12 years has given me quite an understand on the matter myself... However, I am not an audiphyle, and always refered to pieces as the Dvorak or the Debussy, and never really remember the names... Though their styles I can tell. I could probably tell you who wrote a give piece by listening to it sooner than I could tell you what it is called. I like having you on this board; that way when I get something in my head I have someone to ask.

Speaking of which; I think ppl who have been here long enough to understand everyone's expertise knows who is who and poses such questions knowing that they can get good responses. I don't see what a topic thread a week type thing would get us...

Oh, anyone know the song in Sleeping with the Enemy that they play at the end, during the cat and mouse scene... It is very orchestral and has a lot of vocals in it...???

GePap · May 10, 2003, 21:08

I love classical music..it is alsmot all of what I own in the way of music, but I would not be able to hold an intelligent discussion of it, cause I know few of the more technical musical terms.

As for the main topic: it would be great idea, but I think setting it up would be the most difficut, well, that and some minor policing of spam in it.

Boris Godunov · May 10, 2003, 21:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Maniac :
No, I am rather interested by discovering music that pleases me, and avoid the **** that makes most of classical music (like every genre is made of ****). I'm more into grandios music, so of course I love Wagner and most of Beethoven. But my friend had me listen to Mahler (can't remember the exact name of the passage) and it was like crazy. I enjoy the Russian music too, Rachmaninov and Mussorgski first.

Well, actually, I'd say as a genre, classical as the least amount of **** left in it, as the **** has been weeded out thanks to time. The recent trends of dredging up long-forgotten music has produced some new gems, but overall people have realized why the music was forgotten in the first place. Never was this more true than when talking about Verdi's early operas, excepting Nabucco. He had some real stinkers.

I'm surprised that you'd not like Mahler if you are into grandiose music. I mean, he wrote some huge pieces. I'd recommend, in particular, his Symphonies 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8, as well as Das Lied von der Erde. The latter is especially poignant, as Mahler wrote it as his own farewell to the world, since he knew he was dying.

If you like big music, you might also try Bruckner. I've recently acquired a taste for him, and it is indeed a wondrous pursuit. His Symphonies 4, 8 and 9 are his most well-loved, with 8 being his single greatest work.

Have you ever investigated Richard Strauss? I'm not a fan of his music, but he certainly had a flair for the grandiose. And Prokofiev should be on your list as well, especially his Romeo and Juliet Suite.

Quote:

But to me, it is difficult to enter classical music in the meaning that I have still trouble understanding the technical achievements of the musicians and the genius inspiration of the music-writers. To me, these achievements are part of the beauty of the music. It helps me focusing on the music itself, rather than considering it to be some background noise

Understanding the genius inspiration of the great composers is a near-fruitless task, unless you are a genius composer yourself. People have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how these people did what they did. It's like trying to dissect the brush strokes of Monet. Who would want to?

Quote:

If so, my suggestion would be to forget all that nonsense. I listen to classical music very often, and recognize lots of it from already having heard it, but with the exception of a few, I never have a clue who has composed it etcetera. Who cares? It's the music that counts.

While this is not bad, it isn't something I'd aspire to, as there is an increased level of enjoyment to be gained from knowing the circumstances surrounding a particular piece of music, what it means to the composer and when/why it was written. I don't think I'd have near the appreciation I have for most opera if I didn't know the story behind the music.

That being said, many people listen to music and put their own "stamp" on it, creating an idea for themselves about what it means that is personal. I doubt many would care to learn what the Barber Adagio is supposed to symbolize (according to Menotti at any rate). That's why I tend to prefer absolute music over programmatic music. When there is no set story, the composer leaves the listener with a much broader canvas on which to paint a musical picture.

Quote:

Though their styles I can tell. I could probably tell you who wrote a give piece by listening to it sooner than I could tell you what it is called.

I can name Mozart unerringly. I've never, to my knowledge, been wrong about guessing that an unknown piece is by Mozart. He has a musical thumbprint that is so obvious if one just listens to his cadences.

Other composers have "sounds" that I can usually guess correctly, but not with as keen an accuracy as with Mozart. It's odd, because Mozart is not my favorite composer by any means.

Quote:

I have a question for Boris anyway.
Is there a story behind "In the Hall of the Mountain King", and if so what is it?

IHMK is part of the Peer Gynt suite, by Edvard Grieg. It was written as incidental music to Henrik Ibsen's play of the same name, the synopsis of which is here:

http://www.awerty.com/peergt2.html

I believe the play itself is based on an old Fairy Tale, but I'm not sure about that.

Spiffor · May 10, 2003, 21:48

Boris :
Actually, I was referring to Mahler as even better as the other Germans. I can't remember where the thing that has especially impressed me is from. It was a grand opening that went crescendo up to an impressive volume, and then abated. The actual play begun after that

Boris Godunov · May 11, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Boris :
Actually, I was referring to Mahler as even better as the other Germans. I can't remember where the thing that has especially impressed me is from. It was a grand opening that went crescendo up to an impressive volume, and then abated. The actual play begun after that

Ah, I thought you were saying "crazy" in a negative way...

Hmm, I have no idea what you're trying to describe...what do you mean by "play"?