Turn on thread page Beta

If you could bring back any dead musician who would it be? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicboy)
    Thank god no-one's said jeff buckley.

    MB

    damn, too late.

    MB
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicboy)
    Thank god no-one's said jeff buckley.

    MB
    Lol, timing
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicboy)
    Thank god no-one's said jeff buckley.

    MB
    Spoke too soon

    G
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    Because, despite people like you not liking his music, he created some amazing stuff, and I'd like to have seen what he'd do with his life, when not plagued with heroin and other drug abuse running alongside his emotional problems. I think he could have done a lot more. Yes, I know he hated the whole idea of kids 'worshipping' him, I know he hated the commercialisation of the music industry. I'd still like to see what he'd do musically, before the inevitable 'going out with a flare' stage happened again.
    Who said i hated his music?... can't i criticize anyone anymore?... i would say his song writing skills were quite good though apart from that no other quality stood out...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Freddie Mercury or John Bonham.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nik P)
    Kurt Cobain was over-rated, what was so great about him?...
    ^ Implies that you don't think he was a good musician... Sorry if I jumped to conclusions
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eeyore)
    I'm not a fan of Bartok either

    Proper music, IMO, expresses emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc.
    Bartok=bleh
    Proper music has feeling. Bartok certainly doesn't.

    I think part of Kurt Cobain's whole appeal is his "I'd rather burn out than fade away" thing.
    I definitely agree with whoever said Freddie didn't deserve to die. He was a legend!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acaila)
    He was a legend!
    He IS a legend!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Kurt or Jeff Buckley.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    {bows} Yes of course. And he will always be a legend!

    And who is Jeff Buckley?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Richie Valens
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hmmm nobody's mentioned Buddy Holly either.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eeyore)
    I'm not a fan of Bartok either

    Proper music, IMO, expresses emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc. Webern's music doesn't do that by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, it's just not nice to listen to at all, and nobody in their right mind would sit down and listen to that for fun. Finally, you need to study it in depth before you can begin to appreciate it for what it is, and that's beside the point of music. Music does not exist to be analysed.

    OK, now you have a problem. Your view effectively leads to a very pessimistic idea of art/music with regard to modern reception aesthetics. The emotions sprung from the music is not "in the muic" itself but a product of the contents of the music and its reception (including of course the political and personal context of its reception). The only meaning can thus be derived from musical cliche or quotation or repetition of a pre-existing musical concept (eg the satisfaction of ending on a perfect cadence etc). From this perspective a new art would mean nothing unless it constantly referred to its predecessors. You talk about emotion but where exactly are these emotions embodied. If I asked you to write happy music then you would not be able to do it without refering to the music you consider to be happy and thus through lack of originality negate the artistic nature of the music. This problem was first outlined in the responses to schenkerian analysis and it is important to understand that the feelings from the music are entwined with the personal subject. From this we can say that no music posseses emotion but all music possesses the ability to emote and the emotion caused is often quite random. By denying this possibility for the new music you are limiting the definition of music in a very dangerous way.

    As for second viennese school; I am a keen listener.

    MB
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Zombie Holst!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicboy)
    OK, now you have a problem. Your view effectively leads to a very pessimistic idea of art/music with regard to modern reception aesthetics. The emotions sprung from the music is not "in the muic" itself but a product of the contents of the music and its reception (including of course the political and personal context of its reception). The only meaning can thus be derived from musical cliche or quotation or repetition of a pre-existing musical concept (eg the satisfaction of ending on a perfect cadence etc). From this perspective a new art would mean nothing unless it constantly referred to its predecessors. You talk about emotion but where exactly are these emotions embodied. If I asked you to write happy music then you would not be able to do it without refering to the music you consider to be happy and thus through lack of originality negate the artistic nature of the music. This problem was first outlined in the responses to schenkerian analysis and it is important to understand that the feelings from the music are entwined with the personal subject. From this we can say that no music posseses emotion but all music possesses the ability to emote and the emotion caused is often quite random. By denying this possibility for the new music you are limiting the definition of music in a very dangerous way.

    As for second viennese school; I am a keen listener.

    MB
    No wonder you're a fan of Adorno
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acaila)
    Bartok=bleh
    Proper music has feeling. Bartok certainly doesn't.

    where is this feeling? is it some mystical thing. TBH I don't believe in it. Can I recommend to you the concerto for orchestra and bluebeards castle.

    MB
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acaila)
    No wonder you're a fan of Adorno

    lol, do you not like adorno?

    MB
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acaila)
    No wonder you're a fan of Adorno
    A tad pretentious, I'd say :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eeyore)
    A tad pretentious, I'd say :rolleyes:
    what's pretentious about adorno. He is a wonderful theorist (although his views on jazz and stravinsky are somewhat outmoded)

    MB
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicboy)
    what's pretentious about adorno. He is a wonderful theorist (although his views on jazz and stravinsky are somewhat outmoded)

    MB
    My comment referred to you
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.