"Timelessness" is irrelevant.

Sasquamo wrote: Moonlapse is right.  When I think of 1920's and 30's music, I'm thinking of swing and dance bands, which was basically the result of jazz being hijacked by white people and turned into a near parody, dance music, until bebop came in to save the day.

Maybe you should stop thinking like that and remember that there was a lot of good jazz, blues, ragtime, and "classical" music in that time.  Just like any time period.  As has been pointed out by Ivan. 

You don't like Django Reinhardt? Duke Ellington? Scott Joplin? Woody Guthrie? Leadbelly? Son House? Robert Johnson? Louis Armstrong? Stravinski? Ravel? Strauss? and many many many others who were composing and performing amazing music before and some after the 20s & 30s?  I mean think about this situation....no Woody Guthrie, no Bob Dylan.  No Bob Dylan, no later Beatles albums.  No later Beatles albums = lots of prog band don't exist among other things. 


Timelessness means nothing to me.  If it pleases my ears and mind then its ok in my book. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 20s and 30s dance bands do not age well, while much from the bebop era will last forever.

You mean the Paul Whiteman era?. But Swing Jazz was started even before that, and was only danced by black people (before it became more famous) 

Edited by Chus - April 29 2007 at 00:05

The Lost Chord wrote: Yeah but the key difference is you delibrately stated that yours was FACT.

Ummm...show me exactly where I said that?

The Lost Chord wrote: Well, thats pure opinion though...

Maybe.  But then again isn't your original post?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   BTW: There's strictly no Classical music in 1920's or 1930's that genre only existed from 1750 to 1825

Wasn't referring to classical in the 1920s/1930s, just music in general during that time compared to classical of the past.

moonlapse wrote: I have to disagree with LC totally.  Timelessness is important and reflects quality of music.  Think of 1920s or 1930s music (blah) - then compare to great classical music written well before that.

1. Sinfonietta by Janaceck (1926)
2. Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (1934) or The Symphony N° 3 (1936) by Rachmaninoff
3. Carmina Burana (Published in 1930) by Carl Orff.
4. Romeo and Juliet Opus 64 or Piano Concerto N° 3 in C Major opus 26 by Serge Prokofiev write in 1935
5. El Amor Brujo or El Sombrero de Tres Picos (1917 and 1921) by Manuel de Falla

Are "blah"????????

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 28 2007 at 19:08

I have to disagree with LC totally.  Timelessness is important and reflects quality of music.  Think of 1920s or 1930s music (blah) - then compare to great classical music written well before that.

A prog example might be I Talk to the Wind by KC - good song in its time but is hard to listen to now except on occasion, because it just sounds too much like the flower child/hippie movement of the 60s.  Groovy man - not!

There are certainly more than one way to interpret "Timeless" im sure, but im just ranting more in agreement of the oxymoronic meaning.  But, I agree, there is a way to be "timeless", thats true

If timeless means being a product of a determined period of time......I agree with The Lost Chord (Never imagined saying this  must be a secondary effect of the Vicodin I had to take for 2 days due to my back pain ) all the music is a product of a moment in evolution and the historical circumstances that surround the artistic event.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 28 2007 at 13:20