Let’s Talk About Musical Form

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Relax, proglover ... I think that this thread is just f**ked up, no sensible discussion seems to be possible. Actually, I found your post about Supper's Ready quite thoughtful and interesting.

I agree with Mike. Can everyone just take a deep breath and think before posting something, preferably something with a clear and substantiated case, so we'll be able to discuss it and not start calling each other nasty names. It's a forum, not a battle ground (although, this thread sure looks like it).

yargh wrote: Cert wrote: Silly statement alert!!! That's exactly like saying a Limousine fails as a Yacht. Does that mean it can't be a great car? It is not at all a silly statement -- it exposes the silliness of equating adherence to form as a benchmark of quality, which the previous person did.  Look beyond the details, boy.

It is a very silly statement.

The concerto form is not so different from the symphony form - both adhere to traditional form structures.

A limousine could be fashioned into a type of yacht, if someone really wanted to do it - and who knows, the new form of yacht might become fashionable - or might even have sea-going qualities hitherto unrealised.

Or it might be that yachts have their shape for a very good reason, and it would be a very silly thing to do - Pythonesque, one might say - so adherence to form is most likely essential for making the yacht what it is, and losing sight of form could be a complete recipe for disaster. Improving on the form is highly desirable.

It's obvious to me that Proglover isn't "equating adherence to form as a benchmark of quality", more that intelligent and educated use of form is a measure of quality. Which is obvious, but you seem to miss this.

I suggest that you look at the details before you attempt to look beyond them, old man.

Certif1ed wrote: yargh wrote: Cert wrote: Silly statement alert!!! That's exactly like saying a Limousine fails as a Yacht. Does that mean it can't be a great car? It is not at all a silly statement -- it exposes the silliness of equating adherence to form as a benchmark of quality, which the previous person did.  Look beyond the details, boy.  It is a very silly statement. The concerto form is not so different from the symphony form - both adhere to traditional form structures. A limousine could be fashioned into a type of yacht, if someone really wanted to do it - and who knows, the new form of yacht might become fashionable - or might even have sea-going qualities hitherto unrealised. Or it might be that yachts have their shape for a very good reason, and it would be a very silly thing to do - Pythonesque, one might say - so adherence to form is most likely essential for making the yacht what it is, and losing sight of form could be a complete recipe for disaster. Improving on the form is highly desirable. It's obvious to me that Proglover isn't "equating adherence to form as a benchmark of quality", more that intelligent and educated use of form is a measure of quality. Which is obvious, but you seem to miss this. I suggest that you look at the details before you attempt to look beyond them, old man.

My point stands, and my analogy was perfectly illustrative of my point.  It is generally difficult to know what a musician was trying to do, so it makes no sense to critique them on what an observer thinks might have been their goal.  Furthermore, my point was only to show how inessential attention to form is.  A poem could "not" be a Haiku because the final stanza is off by a syllable, but that does not prevent it from being a great poem.  Take that to its logical extension, and you have the issue of a great symphony making a poor concerto (or fugue or opera or whatever).  Musical forms are artificial constructs and breaking them down is no more or less important to effective music than adhering to them.  A progressive rock piece is not de facto "better" or of "higher quality music" because it keeps sonata form, opposed to a rock piece that uses the 12-bar blues, or a free jazz piece that has no form at all, or even a key.

Sorry, no red herrings here.  Sometimes what appears to make sense in one context does not when taken to it's logical extreme.  If an argument is not supportable at its extreme, then it is of little value at any other time.    

goose wrote: People might not try and judge a concerto as a symphony, but they certainly try and judge punk from a prog perspective, or prog from a classical perspective, or hip-hop from a pop perspective, and wonder why they can't grasp it (or worse still, assume there's nothing to grasp )

Well yes, but we must not forget what progressive rock is. It is the assimilation of classical music (and of course other genres) with rock. I am under the understanding, that these progressive rock musicians were in the business of creating art, and not just commercial fads that would erode in a weeks time. These men were more concerned with falling into the lineage of Stravinsky and Debussy, rather than Elvis or the Rolling Stones. Many times these musicians raped and pilliaged classical music flat out (which by the way, I dont have a problem with)....I feel it was a sign of great respect and in way designed to pay homage to the great classical masters.

Many of these prog musicians were European, and quite frankly the musical ancestry of Europe is classical music. They grew up listening and hearing classical music. It just seemed very natural to combine classical music with rock.

In any event, my point is, these men were trying to create art, using classical and jazz forms, idioms, harmonies, instruments, characteristics....so on and so forth...I believe that they wanted, to an extent to have their music compared or rather thought of as "art" music, the same way some view Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. Therefore if you have a certain objective and you are working within a set circumstance...then you will be judged by those same merits and atributes that were used to judge those before you, within the same context. Therefore I have no choice....based on my teachings and education, and the fact that I clearly see what these men were trying to accomplish........I have no choice but to judge and critique their music the same way I would a classical or even jazz composer.

We must therefore use the same criteria that we would judge all other works of art, when viewing and listening to progressive rock music. This is why I dont' feel that it is outlandish to view prog rock from a classical perspective. In this case you get what you ask for.

I will analyze Gentle Giant the same way I would Chopin, Tchaikovsky, or Brahms.......I will analyze YES the same way I would Liszt, Sibelius, or Schubert....

This I believe is acceptable....after all, this is what they wanted, is it not? I think that for the most part, we can all agree that these men were not creating ordinary rock music....this was more in depth, higher.....it was ART.....and we must view and judge art the way we would any other masterpiece......

There is a long line of standards set by artists, painters, composers, musicians, poets, writers for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years.....if you tend to follow within the mold...then you should also expect to be judge by those standards.

Proglover wrote: We must therefore use the same criteria that we would judge all other works of art, when viewing and listening to progressive rock music. This is why I dont' feel that it is outlandish to view prog rock from a classical perspective. In this case you get what you ask for. I will analyze Gentle Giant the same way I would Chopin, Tchaikovsky, or Brahms.......I will analyze YES the same way I would Liszt, Sibelius, or Schubert....

There's nothing wrong with analyzing Gentle Giant the same way as Chopin... the problems start only when you analyze Gentle Giant with  Chopin.

Proglover wrote: Wizard/TRueStar wrote: I bet you would crap yourself listening to free jazz (no joke!).  Music does not have to have form at all my friend First of ALL....I LOVE JAZZ.....infact I LOVE FREE JAZZ.....I love avant garde music.....so don't judge me...."my friend"......

You do?

Then I think you should be happy that Ornette Coleman didn't give a damn about Miles Davis' disparaging opinion of his music, an opinion stemming both from the latter's solid musical education AND experience.

Manunkind wrote: Proglover wrote: We must therefore use the same criteria that we would judge all other works of art, when viewing and listening to progressive rock music. This is why I dont' feel that it is outlandish to view prog rock from a classical perspective. In this case you get what you ask for. I will analyze Gentle Giant the same way I would Chopin, Tchaikovsky, or Brahms.......I will analyze YES the same way I would Liszt, Sibelius, or Schubert.... There's nothing wrong with analyzing Gentle Giant the same way as Chopin... the problems start only when you analyze Gentle Giant with  Chopin.

OH good lord....my dear chap...I wouldn't even dare to analyze Chopin with Chopin!!

Proglover wrote: Manunkind wrote: Proglover wrote: We must therefore use the same criteria that we would judge all other works of art, when viewing and listening to progressive rock music. This is why I dont' feel that it is outlandish to view prog rock from a classical perspective. In this case you get what you ask for. I will analyze Gentle Giant the same way I would Chopin, Tchaikovsky, or Brahms.......I will analyze YES the same way I would Liszt, Sibelius, or Schubert.... There's nothing wrong with analyzing Gentle Giant the same way as Chopin... the problems start only when you analyze Gentle Giant with  Chopin. OH good lord....my dear chap...I wouldn't even dare to analyze Chopin with Chopin!!

Good to hear that.

I hope now that you won't analyze Chopin with The Ramones. 

yargh wrote: "Beethoven's 9th and a Ramones album are both examples of art, sure. Only that the former is better, because it is the fruit of more work, reflection, perception and feeling." This is wrong on many levels.  First, you have no way of knowing whether the former is the product of more work, reflection, perception and feeling than the latter.  Second, even if you did somehow know this, it certainly doesn't make it better.  How is working on something longer and reflecting on it more a measure of its quality? Some great pieces were written on the fly, with little exertion, effort or reflection.  The works of many a mediocre composer are the products of painstaking years of effort and reflection and perception -- and to no avail.  Lastly, whether or not something is the fruit of more "feeling" is impossible to measure, so it may as well be not even be considered.

Argh....I know I said that I would no longer respond to your posts....but lets not kid ourselves....with all due respect to the Ramones....and forgive me if people think that I am not taking into consideration his opinion.....but lets put it this way......the only way that I would EVER put the Ramones in the same category as the GREAT Beethoven, was if someone were to hold a gun to my head....and even then...I'd have second thoughts. Infact, I might just take the bullet in the name of everything that is sane and right in the world.

I know the struggle of Beethoven...Beethoven is one of my favorite composers, consequently I have done EXTENSIVE study and research on his life, his words, the times in which he lived, and his music. I can't even begin to describe the pain that Beethoven went through in his life. First off.....I must point out that Beethoven wrote the 9th Symphony COMPLETELY DEAF! Which is a feat that the ramones(with all due respect) could not pull of if their lives depended on it. Secondly the meaning behind the 9th symphony has huge implications, the truth of that piece is richly deep....I'm not saying that the Ramones are shallow....BUT...they AIN'T Beethoven. Lets not even talk about TALENT....I guess the Ramones were talented in their own right.....but quite frankly comparing the talent of Beethoven to the Ramones is like comparing a paper airplane to The Sistine Chapel, or the Taj Mahal, or the Great Wall of China.....On top of which Beethoven had what the Ramones did not....GENIUS!

Once gain I apologize if I am coming off as harsh, or arrogant, or inconsiderate...but I simply could not allow this to go on and not say something...I tried, I really did try!!