Post by: compasspnt on April 28, 2007, 02:54:54 PM
It's a pretty lofty title, so choose wisely.
Post by: RSettee on April 28, 2007, 03:06:22 PM
Post by: Die BREMSSPUR on April 28, 2007, 03:06:24 PM
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Post by: RSettee on April 28, 2007, 03:18:16 PM
Can we have a "second best of each category"? Even with that, there's so many sub, sub categories.
Post by: Peter Weihe on April 28, 2007, 03:31:02 PM
But if I had to choose one of them No1, the other one had to be No2, hhmmmmm.
And how can we compare a great blues player to those guys?
What about Paganini?
We haven't heard him play but there are all those stories about women tearing off their clothes when they heard him.
That's a tough question, probably impossible to answer.
I am afraid will end with several geniuses in the top position and many more in the second.
Post by: archtop on April 28, 2007, 05:36:16 PM
Post by: gatino on April 28, 2007, 06:09:03 PM
Post by: Unwinder on April 28, 2007, 07:06:11 PM
There is no 1st place...
D.
Post by: organica on April 28, 2007, 07:14:22 PM
" choose wisely".
Known him for years but I don't think wisely is the one .
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewpro file&friendid=13763436
Post by: compasspnt on April 28, 2007, 07:27:36 PM
If you choose Stevie Ray, at least spell his name correctly.
Bach and Mozart would probably be great choices, but we only know them now from their written works.
Paganini had the rep.
McCartney is not at all a bad choice, but recent taste might ameliorate...
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 28, 2007, 07:36:12 PM
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: Greg Dixon on April 28, 2007, 08:00:39 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Sun, 29 April 2007 09:27 |
I didn't ask about first place...that is taken. |
Care to share or should we already know?
Post by: phantom309 on April 28, 2007, 08:02:53 PM
| Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 28 April 2007 18:36 |
My good friend Michael Hedges. He in fact, might also have been the second best BAND as well. Best Regards, Bill |
oooh...good choice. Not mine, but not far from it. Michael was amazing.
Post by: compasspnt on April 28, 2007, 08:32:53 PM
| Greg Dixon wrote on Sat, 28 April 2007 20:00 | ||
Care to share or should we already know? |
You certainly should.
Hedges is another good choice.
Post by: Die BREMSSPUR on April 28, 2007, 09:49:45 PM
I am the second best speller...
Post by: Consul on April 28, 2007, 09:52:28 PM
Post by: Paul Cavins on April 28, 2007, 09:56:26 PM
Post by: Greg Dixon on April 28, 2007, 09:58:37 PM
| Paul Cavins wrote on Sun, 29 April 2007 11:56 |
William Wittman can't quite decide whether it is Donald Fagen or Walter Becker. One of them has to be #2. |
Can it be a tie for second?
Post by: gatino on April 28, 2007, 10:36:42 PM
Post by: phantom309 on April 28, 2007, 10:43:33 PM
2. Duke Ellington
I know you didn't ask for number one, but there ya go.
Post by: compasspnt on April 28, 2007, 10:54:50 PM
| phantom309 wrote on Sat, 28 April 2007 22:43 |
1. Frank Sinatra 2. Duke Ellington I know you didn't ask for number one, but there ya go. |
I didn't have to ask.
The answer was obvious.
No one else is even close.
Great choice for number two as well!
Post by: Paul Cavins on April 28, 2007, 11:01:09 PM
PC
Post by: garret on April 29, 2007, 12:07:46 AM
#1 is Sir Paul.
Post by: R. David Stone on April 29, 2007, 12:26:47 AM
Post by: wwittman on April 29, 2007, 12:36:20 AM
there is a fastest runner.
a highest jumper
the most home runs.
the most runs in an at bat at cricket.
most tennis grand slams, and so on...
but music doesn't have a "best"
any more than there's a "best painter"
Post by: compasspnt on April 29, 2007, 12:45:40 AM
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 29 April 2007 00:36 |
but music doesn't have a "best" |
Except for Frank, this is true.
Well said (except for "amy").
Post by: Randirainbow on April 29, 2007, 01:01:31 AM
carletta madden <carlettamadden@yahoo.com>
Date: April 13, 2007 7:03:34 PM CDT
To: info@tombstonerecording.com
hello,my name is rick,i would like to apply for being a full or part time musician at your studio,1,000 dollars says my skills can tear up any of your boys! i am a master musician ! which is the highest level you can achieve.if you want i can send you some of my recordings plus youll hear my mixing and recording skills to ...your boys will want to ''hang it up'' after they hear me ! i allso graduated from g.i.t in california! i have sighned cridentials frome ''phill keagy,joe satriani,and eddie van hallen ! do you want the best or do you want to play favorites with your'' little'' social friends at your studio? let me know
Post by: Bryson on April 29, 2007, 02:22:49 AM
Paul McCartney
Stevie Wonder
Jimmy Page
Jimi Hendrix
Hank Mancini
Forget it.....
Post by: stevieeastend on April 29, 2007, 03:19:43 AM
Post by: maxim on April 29, 2007, 04:05:41 AM
not franz
not miles
not jimi
not nicola
not johann sebastian (although, i'm sure, he would have been a blast to hear perform)
not john
not duke
not ella
not billie
not stevie ray
not lobby
not mstislav
not amyone
thank goodness, there is room at the top for EVERYONE....
Post by: Mott on April 29, 2007, 05:25:01 AM
Post by: Barkley McKay on April 29, 2007, 06:46:15 AM
Post by: G.Hunt on April 29, 2007, 07:56:00 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Sat, 28 April 2007 21:54 | ||
I didn't have to ask. The answer was obvious. No one else is even close. Great choice for number two as well! |
1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
Post by: tom eaton on April 29, 2007, 08:01:57 AM
Strangely, I think many of the best musicians of the last century or so have appeared on zillions of records and the general public has no idea who they are. Steve Gadd, Jamerson, Chet Atkins, Matt Rollings, etc.
-t
Post by: phantom309 on April 29, 2007, 10:54:57 AM
Ellington offers a thousand reasons to marvel, but one thing really grabs me about his arrangements: his mastery and composistional use of diminished structures. He and Stravinsky are two rare cases where these harmonies are not just a tangential device or V chord substitution to develop tension in tired bebop changes. It borders on Mihaud type bi-tonalism, but it's much more melodic and subtle.
I doubt very seriously that either one of these guys needed any second thought, special gear, producers or encouragement to be great musicians. That's rare company.
Post by: compasspnt on April 29, 2007, 11:19:07 AM
And your intricate explanation of Ellington's amazing greatness, preceded by the choice of Sinatra as even greater, says it all.
The combination of Sinatra with the incredible talents of Nelson Riddle, facilitated by the visionary Voyle Gilmore, and backed by a roomful of the second-best musicians of the time, recorded by astute audio engineers utilising new, perfect-condition U-47's through Western Electric circuitry, in a large and beautiful sounding room supplemented by excellent purpose-built echo chambers, is absolutely devastating.
Then add to the mix this incredible combination performing Ellington's zenith "Mood Indigo," and the result is the absolute greatest, most sonically and artistically stunning recording of all time.
Post by: RSettee on April 29, 2007, 12:28:09 PM
| Paul Cavins wrote on Sat, 28 April 2007 20:56 |
William Wittman can't quite decide whether it is Donald Fagen or Walter Becker. One of them has to be #2. |
Hahaa. Still with the WW teasing?
Seriously though, how does one judge the merits of guitar, versus the merits of drums, versus singing, etc? Lenny Breau has to be the greatest guitar player that I believe i've ever heard (2nd is up for grabs from many people). Then you also have influence, which often isn't necessarily equated with originality, but is undoubtedly an important factor. Even though i'm a huge Neil Young is neither a great singer nor great guitar player, but it's his own style that makes him great--that messy style, like a Keith Richards--is more about feel that actual technicity. So to even compare him to an EVH or Angus Young or someone like that is just on such a different playing field.
Post by: R. David Stone on April 29, 2007, 01:00:45 PM
Post by: Barkley McKay on April 29, 2007, 01:03:09 PM
I remember getting into a heated discussion with a jazz student who derided the ability of pop musicians over those of jazz musicians. In my view, the technical ability of say, Charlie Parker did not make him a greater musician (even though he obviously is) than The Beatles (sorry!)
barks
Post by: wwittman on April 29, 2007, 01:16:40 PM
| steveeastend wrote on Sun, 29 April 2007 03:19 |
When Frank is the best, Elvis should be second... |
Yes, but I like him better with the original Attractions, more than with the band he has now.
Post by: R. David Stone on April 29, 2007, 01:17:32 PM
Post by: John Ivan on April 29, 2007, 01:21:01 PM
I've heard people play live and thought to my self,, {Man, music never has to be better than that!ever!},, So, it could be a guy blowin' Organ in a club somewhere or a drummer doing his job. Music is such a 'right now' experience that the best Musician in the world ends up being the person who is making me feel great at the moment. I'm a total slut..
Stevie Ray Vaughan amazed me. The most killer phrasing ever. He plays two notes and they are perfect. He plays 200,000 notes and they are perfect. He just had "IT".. Wonderful.
Brent Carter singing "Willing to Learn" on Tower of Powers' 1999 Live Record, is one of the greatest Male soul performances ever.
It's all just so great..
Ivan..................
Post by: R. David Stone on April 29, 2007, 01:28:01 PM
Post by: rankus on April 29, 2007, 01:33:36 PM
I'm going to have to go with Sir Paul as well. The muse is strong with him it is...
Stevie Wonder can share that with him on off days though....
Post by: danickstr on April 29, 2007, 03:10:46 PM
2. Bay-toven (gary oldman)
3. Sade I love her.
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 29, 2007, 03:56:37 PM
Post by: minister on April 29, 2007, 05:24:34 PM
there is Pete Best.
does he have a son or daughter?
if not, then the answer is Ringo.
Post by: maxdimario on April 29, 2007, 05:44:21 PM
I like Cab Calloway from the 30's and Billie holiday when they did the slower recordings..
But there is no first place or second place as far as I am concerned, only those who do it 'right'.
of course there may be times in history when only one or two artists get it 'right'. and then I guess you can do the top ten thing.
but kidding aside, I feel that the 'best musician' is too journalistic, too '80's, not musical at all as a concept.
you may prefer somebody because they speak to you personally on a spiritual level, I guess.
Post by: maxdimario on April 29, 2007, 06:02:09 PM
this is my fave period as far as singing goes (not repertoire)
a bit soft for nowadays, but this is what got him famous.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on April 29, 2007, 06:06:05 PM
Post by: compasspnt on April 29, 2007, 06:31:59 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 29, 2007, 06:44:14 PM
Post by: RSettee on April 29, 2007, 07:47:39 PM
It really depends what the musician is going for, and what they end up inspiring in their audience. Like the legend says, the Velvet Underground didn't have many "fans" at the time that they were around--and they were criticized for being totally inept, skills-wise-- but their music inspired people to actually be in bands. I think that there's a very important difference between musicians that get people to simply go, "oh man, this guy is 100 times better than i'll ever be", and then musicians that are realistic, that actually get people to pick up an instrument, and not get frustrated that they don't know every scale. But there's some players/ fans that like to live in a fantasy world, where they can't do that stuff, because I guess it has some sort of magic. I can understand that, too.
Post by: trock on April 29, 2007, 09:17:04 PM
Post by: McAllister on April 29, 2007, 09:32:23 PM
| Quote: |
if you want a serious answer, I don't believe in music as sport. there is a fastest runner. a highest jumper the most home runs. the most runs in an at bat at cricket. most tennis grand slams, and so on... but music doesn't have a "best" any more than there's a "best painter" |
It's very rare that I agree with a quotation enough to quote it in full.
But there ya go.
One of the things that drew me to music in the first place was there is no "best".
M
Post by: littlehat on April 30, 2007, 12:12:25 AM
I had this conversation with a bandmate last week. The music of the Beatles, Beach Boys, LZ, whoever... doesn't speak to everybody. In BK, there are literally a million music fans who don't listen to ANY rock music.
Some art speaks to some people.
As far as great sounding records... Nina Simone, Stevie Wonder, Heart, Nat King Cole, Prince... there's a lot of good records out there.
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 30, 2007, 12:16:23 AM
| trock wrote on Sun, 29 April 2007 18:17 |
randy rhoads |
Doesn't tone count for anything?
Post by: jwhynot on April 30, 2007, 12:33:06 AM
But not always
JW
PS Better 2nd-best musician than 2nd-best poker hand.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on April 30, 2007, 02:54:52 AM
| John Ivan wrote on Sun, 29 April 2007 12:21 |
Stevie Ray Vaughan amazed me. The most killer phrasing ever. He plays two notes and they are perfect. He plays 200,000 notes and they are perfect. He just had "IT".. Wonderful. |
Amen.
Another guitarist worth mentioning: The Lengendary Lenny Breau.
Chet Atkins called him the "greatest guitarist in the world".
Cheers - JT
Post by: wwittman on April 30, 2007, 02:55:05 AM
Post by: organica on April 30, 2007, 03:16:55 AM
Georgie Fame ;
http://georgiefame.absoluteelsewhere.net/index.html
Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames
"The band's reputation as the epitome of cool spread rapidly, and in 1963 their first album, Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo, was recorded live at the club. A string of hit records in the following years included the No. 1 best sellers, Yeh Yeh (the first recording that knocked The Beatles off the number one spot in the charts),....."
the They Might Be Giants cover of Yeh Yeh ( which I love ) is what took me to this fine frontier .
Maybe not top shelf even but easily second .
2nd best musician ever ........
Chick Corea
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 30, 2007, 10:54:38 AM
| Quote: |
http://www.protectionracket.com/indexsite.htm |
Doesn't he lose points for being a Sci Ti?
Post by: RSettee on April 30, 2007, 11:16:11 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 01:54 | ||
Amen. Another guitarist worth mentioning: The Lengendary Lenny Breau. Chet Atkins called him the "greatest guitarist in the world". Cheers - JT |
I agree! There's really no competition, because he literally sounded like 5 guitar players....I have no clue how he coordinated all that stuff. My guitar teacher was his son, Chet--named after--you guessed it--Chet Atkins. Lenny's death was very tragic...to this day, they still don't know whether he jumped off the building, or whether someone pushed him. Jazz/ classical/ instrumental records never sold alot, so he never saw alot of money during his life, either.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 30, 2007, 11:27:34 AM
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 11:33:23 AM
| Peter Weihe wrote on Sat, 28 April 2007 22:31 |
Probably Bach and Mozart are both second to none. |
I really beg to differ, we do not know how well they played, only how they composed. And their compositions are mostly very verbose, lacking the elegance of economy. If as a composer you've actually got something to say, you should be able to say it in less time with less notes.
This is all very easy to forgive and understand, however, as they came from a time when music was not so accessible, nor was it as frequent in occurence, hence listening and musician skills, could not develop in such a fertile and cross pollinated environment as now.
Their genre moreover aims for structural pomp rather than a broader spectrum of emotional response. Again they were commercial artists who had to match the pomp of the church and courts of their time.
Moreover, another handicap of Bach's and Mozarts genre is that even today, even the top classical players treat nuances in rhythm and pitch with a sloppiness not possible nor acceptable from the top pop professionals (e.g. session players). How could the overbloated machinery of a symphony orchesta groove tightly with players sitting 40ms apart, getting their timing from a visual cue rather than using ears (another staple habit of the classical guys, using eyes). It may have been impressive in its time but no match for the afro-irish american way which includes rhythm and groove in music.
I would like to suggest that 2nd best of all time is someone like Chuck Berry who could combine self expression (again not a habit of the classical guys) with harmonic invention, sharp rhtyhmic skills, vocals, all in great packaging. At the same time. But he is just an example, there are a lot of cool cats out there, but I see music as entertainment meant to be heard and if you dont have marketing skills you miss a chance to bring the gift of music to people.
I guess why so little pop comes out of Germany is that people there are educated to raise Bach and such others to unrealistic levels of glory, where as other cultures do not raise heroes on such high pedestals instead giving more value to DIY and a less hierarchial thinking. A civilized nation is a nation where everyone is an artist, rather than one having a few figurehead names.
In practice I think it manifests itself e.g. by more English kids playing and writing their own songs and made to play less music (from sheet music) written by others than their counterparts in Germany and vice versa.
Do correct me if I am wrong.
Tapani
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 11:47:59 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Sun, 29 April 2007 05:54 | ||
I didn't have to ask. The answer was obvious. No one else is even close. Great choice for number two as well! |
Terry, dont you ever imagine what it would be like if Frank had not been such a victim of his era, and had included softer singing in his phrasing?
From the times of Sinatra and even Elvis, all great in my ear too, dynamics of singers has increased, and fortunately mostly at the soft end.
Even some classical guys like Pavarotti have succumbed to the possibilities of modern compression trends and sing real quietly at times.
There is no need to shout.
Not all the time.
Tapani
Post by: compasspnt on April 30, 2007, 11:51:35 AM
Have you listened to the "In The Wee Small Hours" album?
Post by: compasspnt on April 30, 2007, 11:56:49 AM
| maxdimario wrote on Sun, 29 April 2007 18:02 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlujPZ64ZvI this is my fave period as far as singing goes (not repertoire) a bit soft for nowadays, but this is what got him famous. |
Max, I absolutely love that. But to me, Frank was not yet in total control...of everything.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 30, 2007, 11:57:42 AM
| Quote: |
Terry, dont you ever imagine what it would be like if Frank had not been such a victim of his era, and had included softer singing in his phrasing? From the times of Sinatra and even Elvis, all great in my ear too, dynamics of singers has increased, and fortunately mostly at the soft end. Even some classical guys like Pavarotti have succumbed to the possibilities of modern compression trends and sing real quietly at times. There is no need to shout. Not all the time. Tapani |
You can't believe that. Sinatra was a monster when it came to dynamics. He had the greatest soft tone ever. Records were different then. It wasn't a loudness war.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 30, 2007, 12:01:22 PM
Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Elton John (now, his voice has bloomed in later years)
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 12:18:11 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 18:51 |
Tap, Have you listened to the "In The Wee Small Hours" album? |
Yes, and I miss the type of breathiness (think of e.g. Celine Dion, beginning of 'My Heart Will Go On' ) in the lower notes.
I find it a little unnatural when singers use a tone in lower notes that they would not use while speaking.
I also miss variation in color. Not only dynamics have increased since those days, but the area of where the voice is centred varies more. Nowadays, as is natural when you stress a word in speaking, singers are not afraid to go more nasal at times.
I dont hear the breathiness or nasal in Sinatra.
I dont mean to ruin it for you, Frank's tone is a perfect match for the backing music, but probably not for a strat driven twang though.
I find Ray Charles more believable because he does not sound like he is in a role, he sings like a guy would speak.
Tapani
Post by: McAllister on April 30, 2007, 12:59:08 PM
| Quote: |
Probably Bach and Mozart are both second to none. I really beg to differ, we do not know how well they played, only how they composed. |
Well, while it's true we cannot hear either of them perform (or Paganini, etc.), primary accounts of the day claim that Bach was a monster of an organ player. In fact, he was more highly regarded for his playing than for his compositions. It wasn't until Felix Mendelssohn came along and did revivals of Bach's works that JSB was regarded as a great composer.
Although Mozart was a fine player and improviser, his skills as a composer dwarfed his performing chops. No one, before or since, has had such an intuitive grasp of music and it's forms. To the point of creating new ones (i.e. the piano concerto). Add to that melodic and harmonic abilities that at least equal any that have come.
M
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 01:12:37 PM
| McAllister wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 19:59 | ||
Add to that melodic and harmonic abilities that at least equal any that have come. M |
Harmonic abilities? I thought Mozart stayed mostly with the six chords of the primary key, and mostly triads at that.
From what I hear he has huge instrumentation for the three notes of the triad. Compare that with what Django did with three notes: implying all kinds of 7 9 11 and 13 chords.
Maybe I need to join the local Mozart fan club to gain insights, I didnt know he was so appreciated. Do you guys buy his records?
Tapani
Post by: tomruff on April 30, 2007, 01:25:28 PM
peace
Post by: minister on April 30, 2007, 01:52:40 PM
| pop boy wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 10:33 | ||
I really beg to differ, we do not know how well they played, only how they composed. And their compositions are mostly very verbose, lacking the elegance of economy. If as a composer you've actually got something to say, you should be able to say it in less time with less notes. This is all very easy to forgive and understand, however, as they came from a time when music was not so accessible, nor was it as frequent in occurence, hence listening and musician skills, could not develop in such a fertile and cross pollinated environment as now. Their genre moreover aims for structural pomp rather than a broader spectrum of emotional response. Again they were commercial artists who had to match the pomp of the church and courts of their time. Moreover, another handicap of Bach's and Mozarts genre is that even today, even the top classical players treat nuances in rhythm and pitch with a sloppiness not possible nor acceptable from the top pop professionals (e.g. session players). How could the overbloated machinery of a symphony orchesta groove tightly with players sitting 40ms apart, getting their timing from a visual cue rather than using ears (another staple habit of the classical guys, using eyes). It may have been impressive in its time but no match for the afro-irish american way which includes rhythm and groove in music. I would like to suggest that 2nd best of all time is someone like Chuck Berry who could combine self expression (again not a habit of the classical guys) with harmonic invention, sharp rhtyhmic skills, vocals, all in great packaging. At the same time. But he is just an example, there are a lot of cool cats out there, but I see music as entertainment meant to be heard and if you dont have marketing skills you miss a chance to bring the gift of music to people. I guess why so little pop comes out of Germany is that people there are educated to raise Bach and such others to unrealistic levels of glory, where as other cultures do not raise heroes on such high pedestals instead giving more value to DIY and a less hierarchial thinking. A civilized nation is a nation where everyone is an artist, rather than one having a few figurehead names. In practice I think it manifests itself e.g. by more English kids playing and writing their own songs and made to play less music (from sheet music) written by others than their counterparts in Germany and vice versa. Do correct me if I am wrong. Tapani |
oh...my...god....
i don't even know where to begin.
that was one of the most ill-informed opinions i have ever seen on classical music....
in bach's time, he wrote music and rehearsed groups everyday. he had to have new pieces every sunday and for big occasions. he playing prowess was LEGENDARY! he was asked by Frederick the Great to play for him -- pre-empting the King's own flute peformance -- and after playing every keyboard instrument in the castle, asked the King for a theme. Bach proceeded to improvise on this theme and developed it into a many part fugue, in front of everyone.
as for the rest...i am just astounded at how wrong that is. you have no idea how difficult it is to play classical music at ahigh level and the amount of precision and ensemble playing is phenomenal in the best groups.
as for it not being emotionally based, that's like saying rock music doesn't really have a beat, and, only on a rare occasion is in 4/4 time.
Post by: mgod on April 30, 2007, 01:59:55 PM
Ali Akbar Khan. Referred to by Yehudi Menhuin about 50 years ago as the world's greatest living musician. Now well beyond that at 85.
And besides, Frank wasn't very nice to Lauren Bacall, so to hell with him.
Your worship may vary.
DS
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 30, 2007, 02:06:41 PM
| Alan Meyerson wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 09:01 |
the three greatest male singers in pop history. Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Elton John (now, his voice has bloomed in later years) |
Hmmmm ... I think Englebert or Orbison might actually be better singers than those guys. Sinatra's phrasing is the shit, but I've heard him pitchy, even in his younger days. Listen to "Please Release Me" and tell me that is not one of the best vocal performances you've ever heard.
Post by: R. David Stone on April 30, 2007, 03:17:51 PM
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 03:25:08 PM
| pop boy wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 10:33 | ||
as for the rest...i am just astounded at how wrong that is. you have no idea how difficult it is to play classical music at ahigh level and the amount of precision and ensemble playing is phenomenal in the best groups. as for it not being emotionally based, that's like saying rock music doesn't really have a beat, and, only on a rare occasion is in 4/4 time. |
So what was spectacular about Bach's improvisation that has not been bettered? Did Bach play faster? use more chords? Play to more kings or was Friedrich the only one?
What criteria are you using? Neither do I see how just coz something is difficult to play it therefore sounds good? Seems only to prove my point that the style aims for structure rather than content. Quantity not quality. And maybe coz it is so hard to play, they seldom get it quite right.
I am sure Bach was great for his day, Terry asked about 2nd best EVER not who was famous centuries ago.
I also know that classical music is religionlike and worshipped blindly. I apologize for treading on anyones sensitivities.
and dont get me wrong I like the stuff, but to name this stuff above all else or even number two to Sinatra is wacky, Maybe third place for Beethoven
Tapani
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 03:35:34 PM
I prefer the great songwiters from the 20s 30s and 40s.
When he needed something strong (like Beethoven did for his 9th) he needed to borrow.
If you like piano stuff, give a listen to Oscar Peterson's 'Hymnn to Freedom'.
Tapani
Post by: John Ivan on April 30, 2007, 03:56:11 PM
Ivan........................
Post by: maxdimario on April 30, 2007, 04:11:17 PM
| pop boy wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 17:47 | ||||
Terry, dont you ever imagine what it would be like if Frank had not been such a victim of his era, and had included softer singing in his phrasing? From the times of Sinatra and even Elvis, all great in my ear too, dynamics of singers has increased, and fortunately mostly at the soft end. Even some classical guys like Pavarotti have succumbed to the possibilities of modern compression trends and sing real quietly at times. There is no need to shout. Not all the time. Tapani |
actually it's the opposite.
opera singers nowadays aim for maximum volume from day 1.. which is why they sound more like air-raid sirens with a warble than singers.
if you were to listen to the original operas you'd find more musical, gentler refined voices..
it's the top 10 competition thing which has changed everything.. louder=better... even at the cost of diction.
as far as dynamics, both sinatra and calloway or anyone from that period could croon or sing as loud as a band.
Post by: R. David Stone on April 30, 2007, 04:14:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd_oIFy1mxM
Post by: maxdimario on April 30, 2007, 04:17:42 PM
| McAllister wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 18:59 | ||
Well, while it's true we cannot hear either of them perform (or Paganini, etc.), primary accounts of the day claim that Bach was a monster of an organ player. In fact, he was more highly regarded for his playing than for his compositions. It wasn't until Felix Mendelssohn came along and did revivals of Bach's works that JSB was regarded as a great composer. Although Mozart was a fine player and improviser, his skills as a composer dwarfed his performing chops. No one, before or since, has had such an intuitive grasp of music and it's forms. To the point of creating new ones (i.e. the piano concerto). Add to that melodic and harmonic abilities that at least equal any that have come. M |
Mozart was a master of form and he never composed a passage wich was distasteful or out of place..
mozart's dad was a music teacher and wrote a book on music teaching or theory, I can't remember, but I am sure his father was a big influence.
in mozart's time music was not something that should draw too much attention to itself, unlike romantic period which came after.
Beethoven really pushed the envelope as far as what was tastefully acceptable I think.
Post by: maxdimario on April 30, 2007, 04:21:45 PM
| R. David Stone wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 22:14 |
I wonder how I could go about getting one of these puppies installed in my arpartment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd_oIFy1mxM |
I think Bach composed that in his teens.
funny thing about that piece is that the famous intro taa-taa-taaaa ta-ta-ta-ta-taa-taaaa is actually written ta-ta-ta-ta-taa etc..
it's an ornamental figure. If I am right..
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 04:24:34 PM
Mozart was a master of form and he never composed a passage wich was distasteful or out of place..
mozart's dad was a music teacher and wrote a book on music teaching or theory, I can't remember, but I am sure his father was a big influence.
in mozart's time music was not something that should draw too much attention to itself, unlike romantic period which came after.
Beethoven really pushed the envelope as far as what was tastefully acceptable I think.
[/quote]
Never out of place? hmm... Mozart wrote an awful lot of stuff. The surprising and 'out of place' parts are the most refreshing to me.
I appreciate Mozart about as much as anyone else, enough to have performed in some of his operas, but claiming that Mozart is worthy of spot number 1 or 2 of all time (and I know Max you didn't claim that) when we are asked about best EVER, seems to me a very central-european 19th century view.
I am just trying to question the blind faith, when there are a multitude of great heroes to consider with greater melodies, richer harmonies, deeper lyrics (that's an easy one) more virtuosity, and tighter bands around them.
Tapani
Post by: compasspnt on April 30, 2007, 04:25:19 PM
| mgod wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 13:59 |
Ali Akbar Khan |
An incredibly worthy nomination,
Jimmy Page's favourite, to be sure.
Post by: rollmottle on April 30, 2007, 04:34:35 PM
| R. David Stone wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 13:14 |
I wonder how I could go about getting one of these puppies installed in my arpartment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd_oIFy1mxM |
that just blew my mind.
Post by: R. David Stone on April 30, 2007, 04:37:03 PM
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 04:46:57 PM
| R. David Stone wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 23:37 |
Ive decided that one of those might be a bit "bulky" So, Im going to stick with my laptop and midi controller |
..and you will be able to 'grid' your Bach playing
Being kind of mathematical in nature Bach's compositions take well to that treatment.
Somebody may remember the Carlos synth stuff too. The abstract aspects of Bach are nicely underlined. I wish there was a sequel to the Carlos stuff.
Tapani
Post by: R. David Stone on April 30, 2007, 04:52:34 PM
Post by: Tapani Rauha on April 30, 2007, 04:55:45 PM
| minister wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 20:52 | ||||
as for the rest...i am just astounded at how wrong that is. you have no idea how difficult it is to play classical music at ahigh level and the amount of precision and ensemble playing is phenomenal in the best groups. |
Now if you were producing a world class pop album like the new spanish J-LO, and a solo cello part was played like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3BvW2MAj4
would make this guy play the pitchy parts again? or would you use auto-tune? or do nothing, and claim his pitch was great?
Tapani
Post by: JDNelson on April 30, 2007, 05:06:00 PM
Post by: R. David Stone on April 30, 2007, 05:10:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9t_ThKsPfs&mode=related& amp;search=
Post by: minister on April 30, 2007, 05:26:24 PM
| pop boy wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 15:55 | ||||||
Now if you were producing a world class pop album like the new spanish J-LO, and a solo cello part was played like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3BvW2MAj4 would make this guy play the pitchy parts again? or would you use auto-tune? or do nothing, and claim his pitch was great? Tapani |
uhm, whatever.... that ain't what i am talking about.
i was lucky enough to grow up in cleveland. though to young to get to hear the great George Szell in person, i have heard MANY stunning recordings of his. his precision and ability to mold TCO into a world-class ensemble was astounding (though not without it's blood and tears). i did hear Pierre Boulez as well as the almost as great as Szell, Christoph von Dohn
Post by: compasspnt on April 30, 2007, 05:27:43 PM
In music school, we always had to attend a lot of student recitals, get a programme, turn it in for proof of attendance, etc.
Watching a lot of these, I was always struck by the perception of so many of the students of...JS Bach.
They would use Bach pieces to (mathematically) "warm up their fingers" before getting to the "real meat of the music."
It was always a two part invention, etc., played first. Usually way too fast. Then discarded.
Then some Romantic junk would follow as "the important stuff."
I always thought that was so wrong.
Bach was the true genius, not the Romanticists.
Post by: stevieeastend on April 30, 2007, 06:10:07 PM
So, when Frank is first, Elvis should be second
When Bach is first, Wagner is second
When Mozart is second, Haydn is first
but seriously..
Playing Mozart (any) has given me the feeling of playing music created by a genius, especially the piano concerts.
when Bach is best, Mozart is genius..
Post by: compasspnt on April 30, 2007, 07:18:51 PM
I was only commenting on JSB. I am a HUGE Mozart devotee as well.
Regarding Elvis, whom I also admire greatly, and was fortunate to know, I find that as time goes by, more and more people fall off the EP wagon, whereas more and more jump on the Sinatra truck.
Of the "Big Three"bartists of "modern pop music," EP, FS, and The Beatles, Elvis seems to be shrinking a bit with time.
Post by: maxdimario on April 30, 2007, 07:23:02 PM
Post by: maxdimario on April 30, 2007, 07:33:09 PM
| Quote: |
Bach was the true genius, not the Romanticists. |
Bach was universal and was in-tune with the mathematics of space and time, but Chopin brought the music down to earth on a human level.
the Romantics: Liszt, Schumann et all were PIANISTS.
There's something about locking yourself in a room with a piano which gives you the luxury of being immersed in yourself and your dreams..
Anyway the piano made it possible for ONE musician to play everything, but in a salon setting as opposed to the organ which was huge and built into the church usually.
So you can see how the piano directly influenced the growth of the romantic movement.
much in the way that electric guitars influenced pop because you can dance around and act like an electric god..
Bach, by the way is deemed by many to be the FIRST romantic.. which in a way he was, compared to his peers.
he was also a big keyboard innovator because of the well-tempered klavier etc..
Post by: jetbase on April 30, 2007, 07:57:54 PM
Post by: littlehat on April 30, 2007, 08:12:29 PM
B - If it's just male pop singers... Sam Cooke is number 1 with a bullet to me... it's not even close.
C - Classical composer pissing contest aside, I often wonder about the sea shanties, folk songs and other 'punk' music from the periods different composers lived in...
Post by: RSettee on April 30, 2007, 08:23:37 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 18:18 |
Elvis seems to be shrinking a bit with time. |
His waistline sure wasn't shrinking, circa '77.
Post by: John Ivan on April 30, 2007, 08:29:08 PM
Ivan.........................................
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 30, 2007, 09:01:18 PM
| rollmottle wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 13:34 | ||
that just blew my mind. |
Gotta say that baroque just never does it for me as much as these do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmM7O_hS73E
Or for some heavy duty sh*t that will move you and blow you away at the same time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQmakMcLDhg
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 30, 2007, 09:16:08 PM
| littlehat wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 17:12 |
A - Terry... WHY DID YOU START THIS THREAD? I THINK I HATE IT! |
Because he was hoping that somebody would name him! LOL.
Post by: phantom309 on April 30, 2007, 09:21:15 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 20:01 | ||||
Gotta say that baroque just never does it for me as much as these do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmM7O_hS73E Or for some heavy duty shit that will move you and blow you away at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQmakMcLDhg |
I really don't mean to sound pedantic here, but most modern classical performances don't do it for me....wrong tunings, wrong instruments and the wrong tempos 90% of the time. If you want to hear something remarkable (that actually carries Beethoven's intention) listen to a recording of the Bagatelles on a straight strung piano in Werkmeister 3. Seriously. The modulations will scare your equal tempered ears into a whole new appreciation for the music. Sweet 3rds, in tune 5ths....until you move out of the "home" key signature, when all hell breaks loose. IMHO, The Well Tempered Clavier was an ETUDE, not a new compositional mandate.
Post by: compasspnt on April 30, 2007, 09:45:08 PM
| phantom309 wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 21:21 |
IMHO, The Well Tempered Clavier was an ETUDE, not a new compositional mandate. |
The WTC(K) was certainly a compromise, but a brilliant one nevertheless.
Now about the key of D...
Post by: minister on April 30, 2007, 09:49:52 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 20:45 | ||
The WTC(K) was certainly a compromise, but a brilliant one nevertheless. Now about the key of D... |
in College, our advanced Theory Professor had 4 diffferent pianos tuned to the various Temper. makes HUUGE difference as to what key sounds best for what tempering.
our Well Tempered-ness is somehwat arbitrayr. i know mine is.
Post by: Paul Cavins on April 30, 2007, 09:55:07 PM
I think that Rachmaninoff piece is spellbinding performance-wise, I've never been to into the whole piano shredding competition thing. I think it just gets boring and athletic feeling after a short while.
That Debussy is so great. It's the most pure expression of beauty I can remember encountering this side of Eva Longoria.
PC
Post by: garret on April 30, 2007, 10:21:21 PM
| maxdimario wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 19:23 |
Elvis was the most stylized of all three.. style ages.. |
I'm not sure it's that. Fashion ages, but style lasts forever.
I think it's the songs. I recently read an Elvis bio, that pointed out the (somewhat unique) requirement for song selection on Elvis' records. Colonel Parker only allowed Elvis to record and release songs that he owned the full publishing rights to. Many of the best songwriters of that era were unwilling to sell their publishing rights, so the material Elvis could draw from was severely limited.
In a way, it's a testament to his talent that Elvis could draw hits out of modest material. Yes, he had some amazing stuff to work with, but he also had to deal with hundreds of mediocre "soundtrack filler" tunes.
In other news... does anyone else get itchy thinking so much about the greats, when there are probably thousands of amazing musicians alive and working now that we could/should be discovering.
Maybe we need another thread for that. If we had one, I'd start it off by recommending everyone here run/walk to buy some High Llamas records. Sean O Hagan is a genius... worthy heir to the McCartney/Wilson legacy.
-Garret
Post by: phantom309 on April 30, 2007, 10:40:29 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 20:45 | ||
The WTC(K) was certainly a compromise, but a brilliant one nevertheless. |
Oh absolutely! It's genius, and the fact that it has the emotional impact that it has while navigating all 12 keys makes it all the more remarkable. But, it makes my point; pieces composed in the non-equal tunings depend on these key specific tuning "problems" for a lot of their power....and we have neutered them with equal temperment.
Here's a good read on the subject:
http://www.terryblackburn.us/music/temperament/stoess.htm
As for the instruments, there's been a fair amount of opinion already voiced in this forum, but recording a forte piano is a treat! Again, less homogenization of the tone....and less volume....more focused....more like a string instrument and less like a percussive one.
Post by: Tapani Rauha on May 01, 2007, 01:58:43 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 04:01 | ||||
Gotta say that baroque just never does it for me as much as these do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmM7O_hS73E Or for some heavy duty sh*t that will move you and blow you away at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQmakMcLDhg |
Chopin is neither Bach nor Mozart, and this composition is cozy and humane, not overpowering,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxM9UG0nuUI
if only the dude (famous classical player) could keep his rhythm ebbs and tides less overpowering. If Rostropovich was my example of classical pitchiness, Horowitz is my example of classical missing the groove. The take could probably have at least a semblance of slow waltz danceabilty.
Tapani
Post by: Brian Kehew on May 01, 2007, 05:39:54 AM
2 - Cozy Powell
3 - Roland Kirk
4 - Howard Leese
5 - Dorothy Wiggin
6 - Ted Neely
7 - Les Dudek
8 - Pierre Boulez
9 - Randy Hansen
10 - Dave Hlubek
11 - Johannes Brahms
12 - Marty Jourard
Sinatra? The "L.A. Is My Lady" guy? Hmmm...
Post by: Bryson on May 01, 2007, 06:06:58 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 18:01 |
Or for some heavy duty shit that will move you and blow you away at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQmakMcLDhg |
Bad Ass!
That had my insides swirling around......mainly the flow of the rhythm.
Thanks, Brother.
Post by: Bryson on May 01, 2007, 06:07:59 AM
| Brian Kehew wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 02:39 |
4 - Howard Leese |
Greg Leese
Post by: Brian Kehew on May 01, 2007, 06:35:45 AM
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 01, 2007, 07:41:26 AM
Post by: phantom309 on May 01, 2007, 09:58:54 AM
| Brian Kehew wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 04:39 |
1 - Cecil Taylor 2 - Cozy Powell 3 - Roland Kirk 4 - Howard Leese 5 - Dorothy Wiggin 6 - Ted Neely 7 - Les Dudek 8 - Pierre Boulez 9 - Randy Hansen 10 - Dave Hlubek 11 - Johannes Brahms 12 - Marty Jourard |
WHAT?? No Michaelangelo??
But, Cecil Taylor....yeah, he deserves a top spot.
One that I'm very curious about Brian: Marty Jourard. I know him from my Seattle days, and while he's, no doubt, a fantastic musician...how did he manage a spot on your list here? I only know his Motels stuff well, and a few of his movie bits.
Post by: mgod on May 01, 2007, 10:55:01 AM
Cozy Powell? Between Cecil Taylor and Roland Kirk???
Nobody but BK could come up with that. (BTW, you paid $20 too much for dinner the other night but I gave it all to DJ).
Someone said they hate this thread. I LOVE It!!! Its brought all the classical guys out of the closet. There's way more discussion of non-rock than I've ever seen in here. This is so great.
Of course, I think you're all nuts. Beginning with the idea that Sinatra is #1. But, wtf? This is a great read. It even got into temperament. How groovy. If you're sensitive to temperament, btw, Indian music is for you.
Myself, I can't even listen to Mozart, but then, I went to college. For me, its Beethoven, who invented the 20th century 100 years earlier. The late quartets just blew my brains out when I first heard them. And despite Terry's comment's about the Romantics (I agree - they were a crappy band), I think its hard to argue with the brilliance of Richard Strauss.
There have been follow-ups to the Carlos Bach, BTW, by Carlos herself. Say what you will about those records, they sure convey the energy of the music.
DS
Post by: maarvold on May 01, 2007, 11:14:54 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Sat, 28 April 2007 19:54 | ||
I didn't have to ask. The answer was obvious. No one else is even close. Great choice for number two as well! |
Funny, I was listening to Sinatra-Basie "A Historical Musical First" as I read this. So where does Jascha Heifitz rate then? I mean, I hate to seem picky, but I would call Frank a vocalist and Duke a composer-arranger-bandleader. And the one thing about Heifitz is that even when he's wrong, he's [somehow] right. That's a pretty good trick. (BTW, Igor Stravinsky for #1).
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/stravinsky.html
Post by: Todd Loomis on May 01, 2007, 11:38:02 AM
Other than Liszt, I'm thinking maybe Sviatoslav Richter. He is absolutely amazing... and we actually have videos and recordings of him playing! Here is a video of him playing one of Chopin's etudes (op.10, no.4):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRMgZu8rH90
If anyone has ever tried to play this peice, watching Richter play it will absolutely blow your mind... I think he is probably the greatest technical player ever. Some would say that this peice might be a bit too fast, but he does it so well - it really shows his virtuosity - and it's an etude... perfect for that kind of thing.
I'm strictly talking technique here... I actually prefer the "music" of Chopin to that of Liszt... Liszt wrote some great stuff, but I do not think it is quite as good as Chopin - maybe some would debate - I do like a lot of Liszt's music too though. Speaking of Bach, a lot of the greatest Romantics, and Classical composers were enamored with Bach. Both Beethoven and Chopin were HUGE fans of Bach's music, and they have been quoted speaking very highly of it...
I don't think bach was quite the technical "musician" that Chopin/Liszt were though... or Richter! - but as an artist/composer/performer, overall, I think he would definitely rank near the top of the list.
By the way, here's a peice by liszt (one of his trancendental etudes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQrbH8u_JI8
Having never heard him or seen Liszt play though since he's no longer alive...
I guess my vote goes to Sviatoslav Richter.
Post by: mgod on May 01, 2007, 12:08:43 PM
| maarvold wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 08:14 |
(BTW, Igor Stravinsky for #1). |
Igor himself might defer to Gershwin.
DS
Post by: danickstr on May 01, 2007, 12:10:50 PM
But his life was not f#@*ed up enough to qualify him as the greatest musician of all time.
Post by: D Sears on May 01, 2007, 01:37:49 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 01, 2007, 01:49:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90MuPqYtV_k
Post by: jwhynot on May 01, 2007, 02:22:10 PM
JJ - Wow, Pletnev is a revelation! Great link. Off to Amoeba...
JW
PS Been spending some time with my old mates Bach, Beethoven, Chopin - but my old music books still smell of smoke
Post by: rollmottle on May 01, 2007, 03:06:58 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 10:49 |
Another outstanding Rachmaninoff performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90MuPqYtV_k |
this guy is incredible. been watching his other youtubes...mind-boggling.
Post by: maxdimario on May 01, 2007, 03:29:40 PM
Post by: Bryson on May 01, 2007, 03:37:26 PM
| Todd Loomis wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 08:38 |
If speaking strictly about technical capability, Liszt must definitely be near the top... |
Which reminds me;
Bugs Bunny.
Post by: cerberus on May 01, 2007, 08:02:54 PM
| maarvold wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 11:14 |
[ So where does Jascha Heifitz rate then? |
jascha heifetz plays paganini caprice no. 24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPcnGrie__M
frank and elvis duet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWfBof6mihs
satchmo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDSyVrdO8Nw&mode=related& amp;search=
roy orbison and friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSTg73LasVM
dylan, live 1974: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxQIV74kEiE
billie holiday with count basie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIj6w8Pv9dg
just rattle your jewelery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rQvVhClk4
rick wakeman plays the beatles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv8ObA-DSmI&mode=related& amp;search=
| Bryson wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 15:37 |
Which reminds me; Bugs Bunny. |
... and mel blanc, and carl stalling too.
jeff dinces
Post by: Todd Loomis on May 01, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 18:49 |
Another outstanding Rachmaninoff performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90MuPqYtV_k |
That was awesome! He plays really nice... I wasn't familiar with him until now. I love Rachmaninoff's music... that it's still based in harmony, but really pushing it so far - and with that kind of virtuosity, it's awesome. A lot of his music always seems to kind of ebb and flow in these huge extended crecendos and decrecendos - like shorter little bursts of Bolero by Ravel... Anyway, it's really neat - these big washes of sound... and Rachmaninoff is definitely up there as far as one of the greatest musicians too. I have some recordings of him actually playing! I think it was done with an wire recorder or something back in the 1930s or 1940s - the sound isn't great, but it's amazing to hear him actually play. He also did some piano roll recordings, but I think it's neat to actually hear him making the sound, so I prefer the recordings to the piano roll stuff, even though the old recordings are pretty lo-fi.
I probably ought to mention another one of my favorite performers/musicians of all time (Emil Gilels). I don't know if he was as good as Richter or not - he might have been close, but I love the way he plays - so intense, with passion and technique - all of it... Here is a video of him playing one of my favorite Rachmaninoff peices:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXU7I_Yyi2Y
I have a recording of him playing the 3rd concerto also by Rachmaninoff - it's interesting how much slower he plays it- but I actually prefer it - like you can hear more of the notes - it's a good recording.
Also, his version of Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata is unbeleiveable... I love the last movement - it's really amazing - the part where the really fast comping chords come in is mind blowing - I have tried forever to play it like that to no avail... heh.
This is a cool thread - a lot of different music and people here I know, but a lot I don't know much - so I'll have to check a lot of it out!
Anyway, here is a video of Gilels playing the 1st movement of the Appassionata... I like the 3rd movement a bit better, and I think my recording is from a different performance, but anyway, you can see him play it. It's neat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joINnT_ncVc
| Bryson wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 20:37 | ||
Which reminds me; Bugs Bunny. |
No doubt! The Hungarian Rhapsodies! Cool peices. That one is such a cool peice - my favorite of the bunch (as far as the ones I've heard).
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 01, 2007, 11:49:43 PM
Post by: Tapani Rauha on May 02, 2007, 01:46:11 AM
Just think what would happen if you took musicians away from pianos and actually gave them the chance for varying tone, not just volume, maybe even have some microtonal possibilities as well? and even effects? Might that be progress?
Now check out some guitarists, John McLaughlin and Larry Coryell are a place to start for those who like lots of notes.
With the invention of recording, a lot of guitarists will record tunes onto albums for repeated enjoyment and also play new material at live shows. Another benefit
Hank Marvin and Gilmore are some popular names, for those who prefer the tone of notes over the number of.
I apologize for my tone, couldnt help pointing out the obvious.
Or is an affinity for less tonal variation an occupational disease for people who record? Makes the job easier? Surely not.
cheers
Tapani
Post by: RKrizman on May 02, 2007, 02:26:57 AM
| Die BREMSSPUR wrote on Sat, 28 April 2007 15:06 |
That's so easy. Stevie Ray Vaughan |
No, he was the second best Hendrix.
Oh wait, I see your point.
-R
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 02, 2007, 02:42:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtuMVBLEWJU&mode=related& amp; amp; amp;search=
I just love the whole tension and release in his pieces. That's what kills me the most. I hear that a lot in Beethoven and Liszt, but Sergei just took it so far beyond everybody else.
Oooooh, and speaking of Ludwig, here's a goody. One of my favorite pieces of all time with one of my favorite pianists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr2AKxf8m14
Post by: Tapani Rauha on May 02, 2007, 03:44:39 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 09:42 |
Dear god ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtuMVBLEWJU&mode=related& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;search= I just love the whole tension and release in his pieces. That's what kills me the most. I hear that a lot in Beethoven and Liszt, but Sergei just took it so far beyond everybody else. Oooooh, and speaking of Ludwig, here's a goody. One of my favorite pieces of all time with one of my favorite pianists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr2AKxf8m14 |
To me music is at least melody, harmony, rhythm and TONE. Preferrably with variables of each present.
I see the piano slightly limited in its tone variation possibilities. Great musicianship though, not putting the pianists down, but this is a best EVER list. Coming up with own material should also be a consideration.
Glad we got rid of the pitchy clasical string player candidates though in this thread. Piano stuff is also handicapped for me in that I prefer the lead instrument to be better in tune than what tempering allows. Ever wonder why violins dont have frets, or why bg vox can be so good sounding? Perfect harmony is possible, and sounds great, even in fleeting moments.
Tapani.
Post by: jwhynot on May 02, 2007, 04:15:33 AM
Do a search of Murray Perahia on YouTube.
I had a vinyl copy of him doing Chopin Sonatas 2 and 3, bought in I think '76, when I was trying to do the same pieces (mainly #3 the Bminor one).
I had limited success with it but Murray is a wonderful pianist.
JW
Post by: maxim on May 02, 2007, 07:44:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nEmg-_DtOM
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 02, 2007, 10:50:32 AM
Post by: Ashermusic on May 02, 2007, 11:54:04 AM
I cannot imagine a better musician.
Post by: compasspnt on May 02, 2007, 06:21:59 PM
That's why I hate PSW.
The people here are lowbrow.
Post by: philipp on May 02, 2007, 06:38:52 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 17:21 |
It is very sad in this day and age of high quality pop and r&b, that this discussion of great musicians has sunk to the level of classical and jazz! That's why I hate PSW. The people here are lowbrow. |
The question defines the horizon of the answer.
Post by: maxdimario on May 02, 2007, 06:57:55 PM
J.H. was one of the most important pianists at the beginning of the century as well as being the INVENTOR OF THE WINDSHIELD WIPER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWF4KYcgGPo
He plays it really well..
Hoffman was also an early RECORDING pioneer, and he noticed that certain things he did live DID NOT come off on record, so he altered his technique.
I find it interesting that even at the dawn of the recording age music was already being changed to fit into the recording format.
Post by: John Ivan on May 02, 2007, 08:19:48 PM
| RKrizman wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 02:26 | ||
No, he was the second best Hendrix. Oh wait, I see your point. -R |
I've said this before but Stevie borrowed from other people a lot more than he did from Jimi. Hendrix was amazing and it's hard to overestimate the impact he had on our world but in my personal view, Stevie was a better musician in many ways, I mean, at least to the extent that we should be considering who is better? For me,
Better Time.
Deeper harmonic ideas.
better pitch.
more interesting phrasing..
and so on.
I love them both. Clapton too..
Ivan.....................
Post by: John Ivan on May 02, 2007, 08:20:53 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 18:21 |
It is very sad in this day and age of high quality pop and r&b, that this discussion of great musicians has sunk to the level of classical and jazz! That's why I hate PSW. The people here are lowbrow. |
Thank you. This was wonderful
Post by: littlehat on May 02, 2007, 08:54:01 PM
| John Ivan wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 20:19 | ||||
I've said this before but Stevie borrowed from other people a lot more than he did from Jimi. Hendrix was amazing and it's hard to overestimate the impact he had on our world but in my personal view, Stevie was a better musician in many ways, I mean, at least to the extent that we should be considering who is better? For me, Better Time. Deeper harmonic ideas. better pitch. more interesting phrasing.. and so on. I love them both. Clapton too.. Ivan..................... |
I don't think SRV or Clapton in their finest hours rose to the level of Jimi, and they both have said as much in their own words.
They all can play guitar (damn well), but two of the three were powerfully unoriginal.
Post by: maxim on May 02, 2007, 11:33:00 PM
monobrow...
Post by: John Ivan on May 03, 2007, 12:48:00 AM
| littlehat wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 20:54 | ||||||
I don't think SRV or Clapton in their finest hours rose to the level of Jimi, and they both have said as much in their own words. They all can play guitar (damn well), but two of the three were powerfully unoriginal. |
I see your point but I think SRV was certainly powerfully original. From a phrasing stand point, much of what he did was new.
It's all in part, opinion of course. But he did things that had never been done. As you said, they're all so great..
Ivan..............................
Post by: Paul Cavins on May 03, 2007, 01:58:35 AM
Post by: Brian Kehew on May 03, 2007, 06:38:28 AM
Ha - Joey DeMaio plays (perfectly) it as a bass solo on an early MANOWAR album. (Triumph of Steel, I believe)
<<< I have seen Pierre Boulez pick out a wrong note on a tremendous orchestral aggreagate (disonant) chord and correct the player. I have seen him conduct in 7/4 with one hand and 5/4 with the other. I have listened to his amazing compositions like "Le Marteau sans Maitre." I cannot imagine a better musician. >>>
Yes, although I listed 9 people above him in my list, (including a member of The Shaggs). But Pierre B is SCARY beyond belief, it doesn't even make sense. He's even better than the Main Street piano player at Disneyland! Better than Gary Wright even, maybe. (But not Joe Vanelli.)
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 03, 2007, 07:13:09 AM
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer!
The second best musician ever IS the guy who plays the organ at the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood. If you live here, or if you are visiting, you HAVE to go see a movie when this guy is performing before the movie starts. It is absolutely the most amazing instrument, and he is mind boggling.
Post by: Tapani Rauha on May 03, 2007, 09:08:04 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 01:21 |
It is very sad in this day and age of high quality pop and r&b, that this discussion of great musicians has sunk to the level of classical and jazz! That's why I hate PSW. The people here are lowbrow. |
Terry, I'm sincerely trying to help you by pointing out the trademark deficiencies of classical: lack of own material, lack of improvisational and groove skills, instruments with limits in tone and pitch control, but you bundle the Jazz guys in the same camp. They've heard of aftertouch on keyboards and are fairly easy to spot as they are the ones less likely to wear bow ties.What's more the jazz guys are currently useful, they are one of the laboratories from which the mainstream guys pick the choicest ideas. And many are incredible session players.
The mainstream stuff guys on the other hand have specialist skills in communicativity. Not altogether evil.
my tongue in my cheek
Tapani
Post by: tom eaton on May 03, 2007, 09:29:32 AM
Huey Lewis.
(It was a toss up. Eddie Money sits this one out.)
t
Post by: JDNelson on May 03, 2007, 11:42:12 AM
The second best musician ever IS the guy who plays the organ at the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood. [/quote]
...how about a vote for the ghost who plays the piano at the Magic Castle?
Post by: yanik on May 03, 2007, 11:51:03 AM
| tom eaton wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 09:29 |
Huey Lewis. (It was a toss up. Eddie Money sits this one out.) t |
Of course. He's number one.
Post by: Barkley McKay on May 03, 2007, 12:18:18 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 23:21 |
It is very sad in this day and age of high quality pop and r&b, that this discussion of great musicians has sunk to the level of classical and jazz! That's why I hate PSW. The people here are lowbrow. |
..oooh, and the wit is so questionable too!
barks
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 03, 2007, 01:49:29 PM
Post by: Harland on May 03, 2007, 02:07:07 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 13:49 |
Bryan Adams is number one. Anybody who throws up all over Terry has got to be that good. |
I need to hear that story!! I just got back from a tour of the Warehouse. Drooled all through it.
Post by: JDNelson on May 03, 2007, 02:36:15 PM
| John Ivan wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 17:19 | ||||
I've said this before but Stevie borrowed from other people a lot more than he did from Jimi. Hendrix was amazing and it's hard to overestimate the impact he had on our world but in my personal view, Stevie was a better musician in many ways, I mean, at least to the extent that we should be considering who is better? For me, Better Time. Deeper harmonic ideas. better pitch. more interesting phrasing.. and so on. I love them both. Clapton too.. Ivan..................... |
Looking at it in narrow terms maybe, but imagine two carpenters who are more or less equally adept at using their tools, who let's say can cut straighter lines than the average carpenter, or whatever is the criteria. But one builds a suburban duplex and the other builds the Taj Mahal. It comes down to what the finished product is, not how finely it's been built. to me anyway.
Hendrix is a legend as much for his creative vision and imagination, as for his guitar prowess, in my book. No way that SRV was an visionary, and his musical imagination was kinda boxed in to a certain narrow range.
Post by: compasspnt on May 03, 2007, 02:50:42 PM
| Harland wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 14:07 | ||
I need to hear that story!! I just got back from a tour of the Warehouse. Drooled all through it. |
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/142457/6490/?sr ch=Bryan+Adams+boat#msg_142457
Post by: Harland on May 03, 2007, 03:04:42 PM
Thanks Terry!
Post by: phantom309 on May 03, 2007, 03:09:16 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 17:21 |
It is very sad in this day and age of high quality pop and r&b, that this discussion of great musicians has sunk to the level of classical and jazz! |
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 13:50 | ||||
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/142457/6490/?sr ch=Bryan+Adams+boat#msg_142457 |
*waiting very patiently now for the fart jokes*
Post by: Barkley McKay on May 03, 2007, 06:04:26 PM
Keyboard players are so under-appreciated generally...sigh...
barks
Post by: Barkley McKay on May 03, 2007, 06:05:32 PM
| phantom309 wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 20:09 |
*waiting very patiently now for the fart jokes* |
btw
http://www.fart-joke.com/
regards...
Post by: rankus on May 03, 2007, 08:13:08 PM
| Barkley McKay wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 15:04 |
Seeing as others have said more than one I'd put forward Garth Hudson for consideration. Keyboard players are so under-appreciated generally...sigh... barks |
Sh*t yeah! I watched a doc on The Band (one of my all times favorite bands)... and toward the end of the doc they are in a studio with Garth and he is mumbling something... then proceeds to start playing two keyboards one with each hand.. Playing different melodies with each hand!!! Mind blowing. A very strong runner for second best.
Post by: tom eaton on May 03, 2007, 10:17:42 PM
I have that video... watching him do what he does made me listen to the tracks he played more closely... very rewarding listening for sure. There are many great keyboard solos on Band tunes... his solo on "Life is a Carnival" is simply amazing.
-t
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 03, 2007, 11:02:19 PM
Post by: Ryan Leigh Patterson on May 03, 2007, 11:27:50 PM
Are they the same person?
Post by: compasspnt on May 03, 2007, 11:40:16 PM
Post by: organica on May 03, 2007, 11:43:52 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 14:50 | ||||
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/142457/6490/?sr ch=Bryan+Adams+boat#msg_142457 |
Oh my .
Not a Yacht Rock kinda guy ?
Post by: maxim on May 04, 2007, 01:40:09 AM
" ...Dr. Teeth on the Muppet Show was based on Garth?"
i always thought he was a pretty straight dr john
Post by: maxim on May 04, 2007, 02:37:20 AM
Post by: Brian Kehew on May 05, 2007, 08:43:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSYrTKXLYH0&mode=related& amp;search=
Post by: tom eaton on May 05, 2007, 10:59:04 AM
Post by: pinduro on May 05, 2007, 11:37:18 AM
all musicians play music. all drummers players play drums, some play music..
I think you could hand a musician a box of fish and he could play music with it..
For me, 2nd best with probably anything would be Brian Jones.
Great reading!
Mike
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 05, 2007, 02:56:22 PM
When they asked him who the best violinist was, he responded, "There are so many."
Post by: R. David Stone on May 06, 2007, 01:33:03 AM
Post by: maxim on May 06, 2007, 02:19:25 AM
Post by: Todd Loomis on May 06, 2007, 02:21:44 AM
When it comes to the art, there are some things in the pop music world that have really touched my heart too - maybe as much or even more than some classical - I guess the best peices or the ones that are the most personal to me exist in quite a few different genres.
As far as "best musician"... I guess I was kind of thinking of the ultimate combination of technical capability mixed with expressive capability. That's why I chose Richter. I think his technical capability pushes on the limits of what human beings are physically or mentally capable of - and he does it with a perfect mixture of emotion and musicality - his sense of phrasing... all of it is inspiring. It makes me fall in love with the music he's playing.
I don't mean to badmouth popular musicians or anything... I love the way that David Gilmore plays. I love his sound - but ask him if he thinks he's the 2nd best musician of all time. I doubt he thinks that. He has created some amazing music though!
What about a band like Radiohead? They are not musicians at pinnacle of technical achievement - but they have really pushed boundaries, and they have done it in a way that is really exciting, or disturbing, whatever - they did it in a way that is really emotionally moving and charged with energy for a lot of people... there is a lot to be said for that - and I absolutely love some of their music deep in my heart.
Still, it doesn't change my vote for best musician... I'm trying to vote independently of the art itself. If this was a thread about the best art... wow - that would be REALLY hard - maybe impossible to figure out - and it can be so subjective too.
Post by: RSettee on May 06, 2007, 02:26:12 AM
| maxim wrote on Sun, 06 May 2007 01:19 |
bach or beck? |
Johann Sebastian Bach, Sebastian Bach, or Randy Bachman?
Post by: dwaved on May 06, 2007, 03:29:41 AM
John Coltrane?
I must have missed it.
Post by: maxim on May 06, 2007, 04:01:35 AM
"John Coltrane?"
i had written on page 1:
".....
not nicola
not johann sebastian (although, i'm sure, he would have been a blast to hear perform)
not john
not duke
...."
Post by: J.J. Blair on May 06, 2007, 04:48:20 AM
Post by: Ashermusic on May 06, 2007, 10:05:29 AM
| R. David Stone wrote on Sun, 06 May 2007 06:33 |
I dont know. I still stand by my initial response. I dont believe in better or best. I know we talked alot about Bach and whatnot. I guess I tend to favor people who influence genres or those who are more personnaly expressive. Bjork blows me away. I have never heard anything like her and the artistic license she flashes in everyones face is just her right. Do I think that makes her the best musician...or 2nd best? lol. No. However its people like her and Bach or say, Bowie that remind us that music is just art. Art is communication. So, how can you categorise someone trying to communicate with you? |
Because music is NOT just art. It is also a craft and the best musicians, in any genre, spend their whole lives practicing it and developing it.
And if they don't it doesn't matter how much talent they have they will only be talented underachievers.
Post by: Tapani Rauha on May 06, 2007, 12:54:29 PM
| Todd Loomis wrote on Sun, 06 May 2007 09:21 |
If this was a thread about the best art... wow - that would be REALLY hard - maybe impossible to figure out - and it can be so subjective too. |
Subjective for sure, music is nourishment, and we all have our own peculiar thirsts. Different vitamins for different deficiencies.
Tapani
Post by: maxdimario on May 06, 2007, 05:19:23 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 06 May 2007 16:05 | ||
Because music is NOT just art. It is also a craft and the best musicians, in any genre, spend their whole lives practicing it and developing it. And if they don't it doesn't matter how much talent they have they will only be talented underachievers. |
true but lennon and mccartney never studied music at a conservatory, didn't know how to write it and were in their teens when they made compositions which changed the face of music..
chopin and bach were largely self-taught..
craft is a big part of it, but it is also meaningless in a way.
I think it's akin to saying 'which is the brightest star in the heavens tonight?'
Post by: compasspnt on May 06, 2007, 07:20:37 PM
| maxdimario wrote on Sun, 06 May 2007 17:19 |
I think it's akin to saying 'which is the brightest star in the heavens tonight?' |
Which is a measurable phenomenon.
---
In the rarest of instances, one persona will eclipse all else in their shadow.
For instance, in photography, Henri Cartier-Bresson is in a league of his own, and then everyone else can be debated at length, with little concensus.
That was the point here.
Post by: maxim on May 06, 2007, 09:37:22 PM
"'which is the brightest star in the heavens tonight?'"
the sun?
Post by: R. David Stone on May 06, 2007, 09:58:37 PM
Post by: R. David Stone on May 06, 2007, 10:20:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb4jOCAr8ow&NR=1
Post by: Brian Kehew on May 07, 2007, 01:42:37 AM
2) Manowar
I would pay to go.
Post by: maxdimario on May 07, 2007, 02:26:17 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 07 May 2007 01:20 |
In the rarest of instances, one persona will eclipse all else in their shadow... That was the point here. |
exactly.
the others are there and may be almost as bright... it depends on the particular evening and where you are, as you look upwards.
Post by: Tomas Danko on May 07, 2007, 08:58:04 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 06 May 2007 09:48 |
Why not just limit it to the second best musician on PSW? |
There are so many!
Post by: faganking on May 07, 2007, 10:18:02 AM
QUOTE: true but lennon and mccartney never studied music at a conservatory, didn't know how to write it and were in their teens when they made compositions which changed the face of music..
Benjy
Post by: Ashermusic on May 07, 2007, 10:49:40 AM
| maxdimario wrote on Sun, 06 May 2007 22:19 | ||||
true but lennon and mccartney never studied music at a conservatory, didn't know how to write it and were in their teens when they made compositions which changed the face of music.. chopin and bach were largely self-taught.. craft is a big part of it, but it is also meaningless in a way. I think it's akin to saying 'which is the brightest star in the heavens tonight?' |
1. Nobody is a bigger Beatles fan than I am, to the point of being a geek, but to call their fun, exhilirating, early songs "art" is to cheapen the word. Even they would not have claimed that it was.
2. They worked all their lives to get better and better and what they were doing. In other words they worked on their craft.
3. Both Chopin and Bach had considerable training and then continued in an autodidactic way.
Anyway, isn't this post about the best musician, not the best composer/artist?
Post by: maxdimario on May 07, 2007, 07:23:12 PM
| Quote: |
3. Both Chopin and Bach had considerable training and then continued in an autodidactic way. |
nowhere near the modern classical musician..
and they composed masterpieces right from their teens.
Post by: compasspnt on May 07, 2007, 07:51:16 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 07 May 2007 10:49 |
Anyway, isn't this post about the best musician, not the best composer/artist? |
Second best.
Post by: Ashermusic on May 07, 2007, 07:57:56 PM
| maxdimario wrote on Tue, 08 May 2007 00:23 | ||
nowhere near the modern classical musician.. and they composed masterpieces right from their teens. |
I don 't know where you get your impression of Bach being somehow not that well trained but, from Wikipedia:
"Bach's mother died in 1694, and his father died eight months later. The ten-year-old orphan moved in with his eldest brother, Johann Christoph Bach, the organist at nearby Ohrdruf. There he copied, studied and performed music, and apparently received valuable teaching from his brother, who instructed him on the clavichord. He exposed him to the work of the great South German composers of the day (such as Pachelbel and Johann Jakob Froberger), possibly to the music of North German composers, to Frenchmen (such as Lully, Louis Marchand, Marin Marais), and to the Italian clavierist Girolamo Frescobaldi. The young Bach probably witnessed and assisted in the maintenance of the organ. Bach's obituary indicates that he copied music out of Johann Christoph's scores, but his brother had apparenty forbidden him to do so, possibly because scores were valuable and private commodities at the time.
At the age of 14, Bach, along with his older school friend, Georg Erdmann, was awarded a choral scholarship to study at the prestigious St Michael?s School in L
Post by: Tapani Rauha on May 08, 2007, 03:46:21 PM
| Quote: |
I don 't know where you get your impression of Bach being somehow not that well trained but, from Wikipedia: |
Bach was also trained to make records. Apart from Bach being a performer and composer, he was also a 'recording engineer' in that that he had the skill and bothered to leave a record of what he did.
Weiss in many ways similar to Bach was the closest thing to a guitar god in Bach's day, meaning he was a successful lute player. His music is played quite a bit on guitars these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnb1zO8dVf4&mode=related& amp;search=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvius_Leopold_Weiss
He was a successful and extremely well paid performer in his day. He also wrote down music as it was the way to 'record' it.
If we worry about recordings getting ruined by the ME or radio, imagine the frustration of not knowing who would play from your 'record' of your music..
Do any of you record your own stuff, like those guys? That would be an interesting thread. Didn't search. Probably already exists a thread.
Tapani
Post by: RSettee on May 08, 2007, 04:13:28 PM
Post by: Tapani Rauha on May 09, 2007, 01:20:46 AM
| RSettee wrote on Tue, 08 May 2007 23:13 |
Then you have the argument about trained vs. non-trained...a guy like Yngwie Malmsteen is definetely on a different scale than a guy like Keith Richards or Neil Young. |
There are many scales, and many trainings.
Custom built and mass produced.
You can custom build your training thru things you pick up on your own (even from the internet
and piece together for a custom tailored job or you can go to school and be served a mass produced job.Also many schools concentrate on the stuff that is easy to teach and easier to have exams on.
Keith and Neil have skills that Yngwie does not.
Are such skills taught in institutions?
Could those skills be taught in institutions?
Are those skills emotional? technical?
Is it easier to teach technical than emotional stuff?
It is easier to evaluate stuff written down on paper than testing the accuracy of someone's mental idea i.e. what can they actually hear in their head. These types of difference skewa and bias teaching towards curricula that is not often the most relevant. Schools should and can improve.
Bach and Mozart and Weiss all picked up things from family members. Such circumstances are quite custom tailored. It can also be a successful formula. Apprenticing with masters is also a good idea.
Tapani Rauha
Post by: cerberus on May 09, 2007, 02:34:02 AM
and the second best musician ever: stokowski?
jeff dinces
Post by: littlehat on May 09, 2007, 12:56:18 PM
I hate this thread.
As far as I can tell... my fantasy football band would be...
Drums - Zigaboo M
Bass - J Jamerson
Keys - C DeBussy
Gtr - Jimi H & Pete T.
Vox - HR
Produced by - A Wallace
Engineered by - J Fry
Tracked at - B Animals and or Ardent
Arrangements - M Hollis
This band (I'm calling them Rubric) kicks your Fantasy Bands' ass.
Post by: R. David Stone on May 12, 2007, 01:49:35 AM
Post by: Brian Kehew on May 12, 2007, 05:22:36 AM
PufNStuff or Bad Brains?
Post by: compasspnt on May 12, 2007, 11:02:22 AM
| littlehat wrote on Wed, 09 May 2007 12:56 |
This band (I'm calling them Rubric) kicks your Fantasy Bands' ass. |
But not this one's...
Post by: Ashermusic on May 12, 2007, 11:15:34 AM
Post by: compasspnt on May 12, 2007, 11:18:54 AM
What is that?
Post by: cerberus on May 12, 2007, 03:15:43 PM
jeff dinces
Post by: Ashermusic on May 13, 2007, 10:44:53 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Sat, 12 May 2007 16:18 |
"Felt it." What is that? |
As in "feeling it". I know it is hard to believe for a young fella just starting out like you Terry but once upon a time that was considered a valuable attribute in music:)
Post by: Brian Kehew on May 13, 2007, 06:14:10 PM
I remember once playing the disc of "James Newton Howard and Friends" in a University class. It was a Sheffield Labs "live to disc" with James, Porcaro brothers and Paich. All top call sessions guys. The young adults of the class heard it and thought it was "rhythmically sloppy"; it wasn't as "tight" as corrected multitracked music sounds on released records.
I'd say it had feel, but they heard the slop, which is another side of the same thing.
Post by: Ashermusic on May 13, 2007, 07:17:38 PM
| Brian Kehew wrote on Sun, 13 May 2007 23:14 |
>>The irony is Terry, what that band did would be considered poor musicianship today because they did not keep close to quantized time . They actually sped up and slowed down, together of course, where they felt it. << I remember once playing the disc of "James Newton Howard and Friends" in a University class. It was a Sheffield Labs "live to disc" with James, Porcaro brothers and Paich. All top call sessions guys. The young adults of the class heard it and thought it was "rhythmically sloppy"; it wasn't as "tight" as corrected multitracked music sounds on released records. I'd say it had feel, but they heard the slop, which is another side of the same thing. |
Brian, that is just sad. Human has become synonymous with sloppy. Sad.
BTW thanks for "Recording The Beatles" It has brought me much pleasure.
Post by: mgod on May 13, 2007, 08:11:27 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 13 May 2007 16:17 |
Brian, that is just sad. Human has become synonymous with sloppy. Sad. |
Personally. I'm quite OK with that. A little slop is good for the soul - in flamming is greatness.
DS
Post by: R. David Stone on May 14, 2007, 12:18:22 AM
Post by: R. David Stone on May 14, 2007, 12:23:13 AM
Post by: littlehat on May 14, 2007, 01:30:22 AM
B- My FFB (Fantasy Football Band) represents my TASTE more than their "Bestness", which I hope I've made clear I don't believe in.
If you want to be the best... quit.
At the very least, leave me out of it.
If you want to be yourself, and constantly improve upon what that means? We're going to be good friends for a long time.
Is Zigaboo a better drummer than Buddy Rich?
I think the two don't really even play the same instrument...
What they heard in their heads, and wanted to say were almost in different languages... but both great peotry.
How can one be better than the other when the both are so singular?
Post by: Tomas Danko on May 14, 2007, 08:09:51 AM
| R. David Stone wrote on Mon, 14 May 2007 05:18 |
maybe arrangement can trick your senses. For example, I read an interview with Trent Reznor and he was talking about mixing the Fragile album. There was a song that he had quantized drums and super fuzzy, loud guitars over it. Yet it sounded out of time. Somehow they descovered that turning the drums down in the chorus seemed to virtually lock the song. |
Once drum sounds becomes sampled (or chopped up and quantized) the attack may be happening later than the grid. In this case it could have been very tight and quick transient response regarding the drums but the guitar was slow (thin pick in the hand of a sloppy guitar player, eh? hehe). Tuning the drums down will put it all in the pocket.
I often get frustrated over professional sample libraries where this happens. For instance, a huge piano library where a few notes have a nudge more preroll before the transient. It makes me sound like a bad pianist. Same thing with snares and kick drums sometimes. But then you just adjust by ear. Even if I hard quantize electronic sounds I find myself sliding things back and forth to compensate for these issues.