Are there any living composers as talented as Mozart?
Are there any living composers as talented as Mozart?
Other urls found in this thread:
telegraph.co.uk
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
bob dylan
noel gallagher
grimes
Katy Perry
Mozart
Nah, no one will ever be as good as I was back in the day
i mean he of course, he
A. HEM.
Speaking as an ultra-experienced, highly educated, hoity-toity professional classical musician... Absolutely, unironically yes. But as to who? That's gonna take several hundred years of debate to determine. Although I will say that IMO there's just one very good candidate in this thread so far. And no - it isn't Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan is a phenomenal songwriter (someone who sets music to lyrics.) Mozart was a phenomenal composer (someone who sets lyrics to music.)
Btw this should be a huge hint to whom the one in this thread, since there have only been two composer-level musician's mentioned at all.
it's katy perry
What are your thoughts on these:
Not even remotely similar (or imo on the same level) as Mozart when put into the contexts of their respective times.
Mozart was a musically savantic, edgy contrarian composer who was universally lauded (by those who didn't hate his guts for his personality) for writing thoroughly contemporary-sounding (for the time) music that was engineered to appeal to both highly educated and regular music listeners alike (see quote below.) All of these guys/gals are just edgy neo-classicists. The only reason why Mozart's compositions didn't include electronic instruments like synths/drum machines and modern pop hooks is because those things had yet to be invented.
>The golden mean, the truth, is no longer recognized or valued. To win applause one must write stuff so simple that a coachman might sing it, or so incomprehensible that it pleases simply because no sensible man can comprehend it.
— Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, writing to his father in 1782
I mostly agree with this except that he was a savant (he wasn't actually autistic, despite being portrayed as such in the movie Amadeus) or trying to be edgy. He just wanted to be musically experimental and innovative without destroying classical form, which he deeply admired (the same is true for Beethoven, who even his most abstract work manages to conform to classical form-principles when analyzed.)
Grimes. Her melodies are on par with Mozart, if not better.
This whole thread is just further proof that Mozart is underrated.
maybe that girl that wrote an opera at 11 years
telegraph.co.uk
hunter hunt-hendrix
...
...
>grimes posters
If mozart came back he'd be producing pop music like grimes
yeah bro grimes is clearly a melodic genius just like mozart
*goes up and down the c minor scale*
In all seriousness,
Arvo Pärt
lmao
Philip Glass.
no
I hope you're being ironic
Brian Eno
Hans Zimmer, of course.
'ye
but i drink my pee
Probably someone who does technical death metal, which is the closes thing to classical music that exists today.
Sufjan Stevens
>savant (he wasn't actually autistic
Never said he was. Autism and savantism often correlate (to the point where many people falsely believe they are synonymous.) But - as the saying goes - correlation =/= causation.
>or trying to be edgy.
First of all - en.wikipedia.org
Now - having gotten that out of the way - there are two methods by which one can go about breaking 'the rules':
1. Actually outright break them.
2. Subvert them.
In terms of his music, Mozart's edginess lies almost entirely in the latter form method. When taken apart and analyzed piecemeal, there really isn't very much to Mozart's music that stands out in terms of being unprecedented. However, if you take all of the individual pieces and consider how they function as a whole, THAT is where the magic of his music lies. And it's the same for every other artist whose work manages to end up as part of classical canon - regardless of the art-form.
Like I said initially - no one gets to be on Mozart's level/truly surpass it until after their legacy manages to survive for hundreds of years after their death. With that said, if I were to have to name a single musician/composer of the current era who functions primarily in the contemporary music world rather than the neo-classical one (since that ISN'T where true musical innovation or enduring legacies like Mozart's are established*), that name would have to be Grimes. Completely unironically.
* Speaking as someone who loves listening to and performing (as well as composing) neo-classical music, I have no problem admitting that it is an inherently dead art-form in the same way that Latin is a dead language. It can be an incredible inspiration to the creation of "new" things, but there is absolutely nothing fresh or innovative about it directly.
Eric Whitacre. There has been no greater accomplishment in contemporary music than his virtual choirs: youtube.com
>that name would have to be Grimes
>youtube.com
Sufjan Stevens is better than Grimes.
See my footnote at the end of Honestly the 2nd best answer ITT so far. And no, this would be far from a deterrent if true (see 2nd paragraph.) The problem with making a case for Brian Eno is that most of his legacy consists of what is - at the end of the day - other people's music.
what's your take on autechre?
wot do u think of death grips, gybe, anco
Thoguhts on Joanna Newsom? I luff her
Fundamental to the advancement of music (specifically in terms of being a proof-of-concept for electronically synthesized sounds being appropriate for the creation of music) but ultimately unlikely to be more than a footnote in the annals of music history because of how under-developed their music is. Which isn't a stylistic dig at them by any means. It's just that other people have since come along and made much more interesting things built on the foundations that they helped lay.
Good point. Henry Grimes is one of my favorite artists currently active.
Fyi will get to responding to responding about each of these artists (as well as many others people are curious about) in reference to their viability as contemporary classical canon (aka what Classical music is really about) as I can. Got some other stuff to do.)
I don't know man, Kyle Landry? Some movie score composer? I'm not much of a classical guy
...
see
Krzysztof Penderecki
lol
>It's just that other people have since come along and made much more interesting things built on the foundations that they helped lay.
Name me on popular electronic artist and or group that is/are interesting as Autechre
Kraftwerk.
>unironically engaging a grimesfag
>Death Grips
Too harsh-sounding and sonically extreme OVERALL to ever make it into what will emerge as contemporary classical. Which isn't to belittle their overall artistic value (BREAKING NEWS: Professional Classical Musician and Composer Death Grips Claims Death Grips Have Actual Artistic Merit.) It's just that experimental noise/hip-hop/rap fusion music is a lot take, aurally, and harshness is meaningless and incredibly grating on the ears when it is the default state of music. You've got to have a mixture pf pretty AND harsh sounds if you there to be a realistic chance of people continuing to listen to it after your lifetime.
GY!BE are great but Death Grips are overrated to the fucking teeth
Thats a given, but they're early Krautrock stuff is superior to their post TEE output
>gybe
Interesting mixtures of sounds, but it feels a lot like watching a Dario Argento film - all style, no substance. It's the sort of thing you're gonna love right up until the day you hear something similar-sounding to it that has actually discernible universal human intentions behind it. After which you will happily never listen to it again.
Damn.. you actually got me to listen to some of her stuff and they're just boring kitschy pop songs. I finally know what it feels like to get memed.
...
What are your takes on SUNN 0))) then?
>anco
Aka the Beach Boys of the 21st century. They probably have one of the better chances of having their musical memory preserved beyond their time than most ITT desu, but probably not for any reasons other than nostalgia. Their songs all seem to speak to a very specific frame of mind. Which is both a good thing (since it means that if you happen to be in that mindset, then there is nothing better than listening to Animal Collective) and a bad thing (since the human mind is changes state/mood, meaning that listening to this band is unlikely to be anything more than incidental. In order for a body of music to reach the level of long-term appreciation that inevitably gets defined as classical, it has to be able to speak to many different emotional states among many unlike-minded people. I don't foresee that being the case here.
Whats going on ITT
...
>actually discernible universal human intentions
that sounds like bollocks. you'd say gybe doesn't have that because..?
also, why Grimes?
Imo probably the best thing to happen to the harp as a featured solo instrument in either contemporary OR classical music since Harpo Marx. Fantastic lyricist, okay singer-songwriter (as long as you can get past the one-dimensionality of her voice.) But not really in the running as a contemporary classical COMPOSER since the lyrics are clearly the centerpiece of what she does (see )
Listen to the rest of her music. She took some lessons from Bach too:
>Again - it depends on the style of music. In small-ensemble situations (typified by the jazz and classical chamber groups) sonic interest is principally achieved through variations in scale, chord progression, time signature, and tempo (aspects known as the horizontal axis elements of music in music theory circles - since they're rendered horizontally in standard music notation) rather than through variations in sonic texture and timbre.
>In contrast to this, large ensemble situations (typified by layered/sample based music - ala Grimes - and classical orchestra/organ music) the opposite is true. Sonic interest is primarily achieved through variations of sonic texture and timbre (aspects known as the vertical axis elements of music in music theory - since they're rendered vertically in standard music notation) brought about by combining individual samples/instruments together in constantly changing configurations, while leaving the horizontal axis elements relatively untouched.
>One of the best classical examples of this latter method is Bach's Passacaglia in C Minor (originally written for organ, but transcribed here beautifully imo for full orchestra Johann Sebastian Bach - Passacaglia in C Minor BMV 582 (White Nights) Notice how, despite its extended running time and constantly variating sound, the horizontal axis elements described earlier are very simply defined and NEVER change (the entire song's chord progression consists of the same 4 chords repeated ad nauseum.) This is the sort of context in which the complexity of Grimes' music (especially regarding her earlier stuff) is based; constant, conscious variations in sound quality rather than formal structure.
Sup Forums users underestimate her so much.
Based on what? Your irrelevant belief?
He meant THAT Grimes, don't be silly.
no doubt
Radiohead?
kek
Not going to lie, I only started listening to Mozart after watching Amadeus. What a crazy madman
>saying grimesfag
>wants to be taken seriously unironically
You're just a pathetic hipster. Get over yourself, dipshit.
I can't really help it if I find them boring. That's just my basic response to the music. Sorry.
Also see my footnote at the end of
It's basic indeed. Next time don't judge an artist by listening to a few song snippets, like you most probably did.
Well how else are you supposed to judge them other than by listening to their music???
>better
There is no "Y is better than X other CONTEMPORARY artist" happening in this thread. The question being raised here is about how various artists measure up in terms of longterm classical music appeal in the vein of someone like Mozart.
Did you really listen to her music? I highly doubt it. I bet you checked just few seconds from her top youtube videos. At least check these ones:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
And tell me how all of them are pop songs.
>they're just boring kitschy pop songs
I'm betting you'd say the exact same thing about the Beatles... who are pretty much the epitome of 20th century classical music to be (like it or not.)
Me too, it finally clicked
Could you elaborate? And, as I asked previously, what about Radiohead?
Is your criterion music that will be enjoyed and influential long after the death of its creator?
hearty kekk
It's true that I don't care for the Beatles (I prefer the Kinks).
Mostly only familiar with them through their work with Scott Walker (my 2nd favorite living musician fwiw) and I have limited internet access atm, so take this for what it's worth.
They're the harsh noise aspects of heavy metal mixed with the classical expansiveness of classical orchestral music. but that seems to be about it. It lacks anything discernible to bridge that disparity, which is a real problem in terms of attracting/retaining new casual listeners for decades to come. It's like a shower faucet that has only two settings: scalding hot or freezing cold. Not everyone's coup of tea.
>pop-"""""""""""music""""""""""" is music
pop singers should never attempt to sing real music
>divine Ave Maria cover
>the pleb thinks it's gross
Pearls before swines.
this
yes.
Obviously not all of these are alive - Ives, Schoenberg etc. just look at the ones who are.
why are grimes fans so volatile? If anybody even suggests that they dislike her music they freak out. I can't think of any other fanbase as obnoxious, except maybe a few jam bands.
poly put your trip on
Terrible chart terrible taste.
EXCELLENT mood/task music (similar story to what I said about Animal Collective ) which is to say that imo their music is fantastic for inspiring a very specific sort of mood (it's great music for listening to while making visual art desu) but that itself ends up limiting its appeal (which - once again - is problematic in attracting the sort of long-term listener interest that inspires a musical body of work to be remember for hundreds of years after.)
I also have a personal pet peeve with the lack of rhythmic structure so often seen in their songs. They have excellent spacey, harmonic goodness going on in their music, but without some sort of strong, steady pulse to keep it grounded, the whole thing often ends up coming across as spacey spaciousness piled on top of spaciousness - like a ake entirely made of icing.
Imo Atoms for Peace's music is actually significantly better than Radiohead, because it is the wonderful spacey sound of Radiohead mixed with the rhythmic/percussive aspect of RHCP. It's essentially Radiohead with steady dance beats - a great combination since it helps balance the arrangement of sound.
It's been a while since I've seen baits of such quality.
>Ferneyhough, Kurtág, Psathas etc.
Random noises and zero craftsmanship. I know this is you, poly.
>Random noises and zero craftsmanship
top pleb lol
feel free to post better contemporary classical music
Thanks for the input. It clarified what I wanted to know about your criteria.
A certain mainstream appeal seems to be very important to you wrt to this analysis, but you don't seem to deny the quality per se of artists that very consciously make different choices.
clearly you haven't listened to everything in
>contemporary classical music
>classical music
>classical
If I may add: even though you seem to prefer this kind of mainstream balance.
>Is your criterion music that will be enjoyed and influential long after the death of its creator?
Yes. Whose music will continue to be remembered/listened to/talked about in academic circles long after they themselves have passed into legend and memory.