My favorite music is classical, some jazz and some classic rock. I can't stand rap, metal, pop, disco and above all I detest country music.
My personal favorites are pre 77 Skynyrd, Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard.... and btw, Cash and Haggard are not country.
You must mean you don't care for today's country music. There is very little "country" on most of today's so-called country music radio stations, but to say that Cash and Haggard aren't country is very wrong.
Mostly Classic Rock from the 60s and 70s. Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, Doors, Janis Joplin, Cream (with Eric Clapton), Canned Heat, Moby Grape, Jefferson Airplane, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, BB King, CSN&Y, Led Zeppelin, Steppenwolf and many others. Big Fan of John Mayall. Also, Woody Guthrie/folk like music and especially lots of Bob Dylan and some Donovan/John Prine. Most anything, and a little "C&W" especially some of the older stuff.
Does the Summer of 42' soundtrack count Sam? :tooth:
Don't have any idea about summer of 42 having never seen the movie in the first place...
From your list, the only bands / musicians I've not seen live are Moby, CSN, Doors, and Moody Blues. Everyone else, yes. Add to that the Band, Dire Straits, Queen, Springsteen.
Best "musically" I ever saw, the Band. Best guitar, Clapton any time, all through. Group I never saw and really wanted to, Doors. Most exciting, Jimi or Stones. Worst, Dylan (as you know he had a habit of blowing hot/cold and I caught him on a very very cold tour). Saw him 3 times total, the other 2 were excellent. Most surprisingly fine: Springsteen. Concert I enjoyed a lot (I think) but cannot remember much about it: Jimi.
You must mean you don't care for today's country music. There is very little "country" on most of today's so-called country music radio stations, but to say that Cash and Haggard aren't country is very wrong.
I just never considered Cash or Haggard country. IMO they fit into a unique nitch somewhere between folk and rock with a slight touch of blues and rockabilly thrown in.
I just never considered Cash or Haggard country. IMO they fit into a unique nitch somewhere between folk and rock with a slight touch of blues and rockabilly thrown in.
That's absolutely right—but folk/rock/blues/rockabilly... mix them all together and what you get, in my opinion, fits under the umbrella called "country." Cash performed songs in each of those categories. Same with Haggard. His western swing stuff is very jazzy with trumpets and clarinets.
New or old, some country music is wonderful, some is just awful.
Don't have any idea about summer of 42 having never seen the movie in the first place...
From your list, the only bands / musicians I've not seen live are Moby, CSN, Doors, and Moody Blues. Everyone else, yes. Add to that the Band, Dire Straits, Queen, Springsteen.
Best "musically" I ever saw, the Band. Best guitar, Clapton any time, all through. Group I never saw and really wanted to, Doors. Most exciting, Jimi or Stones. Worst, Dylan (as you know he had a habit of blowing hot/cold and I caught him on a very very cold tour). Saw him 3 times total, the other 2 were excellent. Most surprisingly fine: Springsteen. Concert I enjoyed a lot (I think) but cannot remember much about it: Jimi.
The film's soundtrack consists almost entirely of compositions by Michel Legrand, many of which are variants upon "The Summer Knows", the film's theme. Lyrics are by Marilyn and Alan Bergman. In addition to Legrand's scoring, the film also features the song "Hold Tight" by The Andrews Sisters and the theme from Now, Voyager.
Summer of '42: Original Motion Picture Score
No. Title Length
1. "Summer of '42 (Main Theme)" 3:51
2. "Summer Song" 4:21
3. "The Bacchanal" 1:48
4. "Lonely Two" 2:04
5. "The Danger" 2:13
6. "Montage: But Not Picasso / Full Awakening" 3:32
7. "High I.Q" 2:11
8. "The Summer Knows" 1:47
9. "The Entrance to Reality" 3:04
10. "La Guerre" 3:15
11. "Los Manos de Muerto" 3:29
12. "Awakening Awareness" 2:26
13. "And All the Time" 1:43
Total length:
35:44
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Kinda funny this thread would come up now, I'm on the road for the next several weeks flying
Iron Maiden. Tonight in Raleigh, Friday in Nashville, then St Louis,Kansas City,Corpus, Vegas,
the list goes on through the 12th.So far seems like nice guy's, older than I expected. Steve Harris
seems to be a hoot. They like the plane a lot and may want us to continue on to Brazil for another
two weeks.
Aside from the funny typo, I have the same feeling about that as I do with most soundtracks. Meh. Michel LeGrand is a pop musician (and French), and I generally don't like pop music. That, or any other sort of "watered down" or "feel good" music. Such as, for example, pop-rock vs classic rock, pop-classical vs genuine classical. I don't think others who like that music are wrong, it's just not for me. I think of it as "elevator music" or "mall music".
This doesn't detract from listening to great music soundtracks in a film, and as we know, it's a solid part of any terrific movie, how the excellent music can help drive the dramatic, action, or romantic themes. But it's just not authentic classical nor jazz nor rock.
An analogy might help... When we were little kids we might play tic-tac-toe (the 9-square simple version) until we learned that it's impossible to lose if you either go first and check the center, or go second and check a corner. After that, the "game" aspects of this were lost and we eventually settled on more complex, unpredictable games, like chess or poker or bridge or whatever (why I still love chess, for example). In other words, the complexity is a challenge for our adult minds.
We enjoy a good thriller movie, in which we enjoy the tricks that the plot runs us through, the bad guy being revealed, where not everything is as clear as a kid's comic book. Sure, we love to kick back, too, to just watch a goofy comedy movie or some silly childish thing, but we're more "turned on" intellectually by more complex stuff, whether it's a good spy thriller novel or western or whatever.
Same for music (and by that, I mean music that you specifically take the time to listen to, either by going to a concert or buying the CDs, etc). An adult mind is most interested in adult stuff, simply because it challenges the brain, which is part of the enjoyment.
Which is one reason I like classical music more than the other types that I also like. It's intentionally complex (aka a Bach fugue) and it's a fun challenge to the mind to let the brain be a bit buzzed by such an overwhelming intensity. Not all the time, of course -- I'm perfectly happy to drive along while listening to a CD of Willie or Clapton or whomever. But when I'm looking for some real "puzzle for the mind" I'll pop in a Beethoven symphony or Mozart concerto or a Verdi opera.
I freely admit to classical music being an acquired affection, like single malt scotch.
That's absolutely right—but folk/rock/blues/rockabilly... mix them all together and what you get, in my opinion, fits under the umbrella called "country." Cash performed songs in each of those categories. Same with Haggard. His western swing stuff is very jazzy with trumpets and clarinets.
New or old, some country music is wonderful, some is just awful.
I appreciate where you're coming from but I think you got a little discombobulated there.
If you mix Country, gospel, bluegrass and the blues then you get rock-n-roll. If you disagree then watch the Last Waltz again.
Regarding Cash and Haggard, if I may channel David Allan Coe, if that ain't country, i'll kiss your a s s
Kinda funny this thread would come up now, I'm on the road for the next several weeks flying
Iron Maiden. Tonight in Raleigh, Friday in Nashville, then St Louis,Kansas City,Corpus, Vegas,
the list goes on through the 12th.So far seems like nice guy's, older than I expected. Steve Harris
seems to be a hoot. They like the plane a lot and may want us to continue on to Brazil for another
two weeks.
I have to ask, any religious practices going on that make the hair stand up on your head?
I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
For those with a liking (or even a possible enjoyment) for classical, here's an example of what I think about JS Bach being transcendent -- powerful to the point of almost awe and magic. It goes a bit to the point I was making about how we often look for some complexity in our entertainment, in our music, to challenge our minds.
Here are 2 cuts, recorded in the 20s by the great Bach scholar and musician Wanda Landowska, who was almost singlehanded in her revival of appreciation for Bach in the early 20th century, Paris in the Roaring Twenties, and of course America where she & hubby came to live.
This is Bach's Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue in D-minor, BWV 903 (Bach compositions are numbered chronologically, sort of like Mozart's are). It's played on a special "period" harpsichord, manufactured to Landowska's specs to be the same as those Bach used. The YouTube cut is in 2 parts, the Fantasia and then the Fugue (a Fugue is just the classical term for a multiple-part "song", like a round that kids sing):
With either piece, understand that a harpsichord is similar to a piano but it has 2 manuals (keyboards) and stops like an organ. And what's amazing here is how fast ol' Wanda is on the keys. Realize that you can't skim your fingers sideways along the keyboard like a piano, but instead you have to press down firmly on each key. So when she plays the fast runs, like midway in the Fantasy, or plays these immensely complex functions such as in the 3-part Fugue, you realize just how hard this is to play.
The precision is almost scary. In the Fantasia, check the run at 0:25 that picks up speed as she heads "downhill", at 2:15, at 6:06.
In the Fugue, check how each of the 3 parts starts, part 1 of course at the beginning, a simple little tune, then part 2 at 0:16, part 3 at 0:35, and how the 3 parts intertwine in and out, up an down. With a Fugue, it's kinda fun to listen "horizontally" instead of "linearally". By that, I mean that with conventional music, we listen to the lyrical line as it goes across the page, even if harmonies are added. But with a Fugue, the parts are "stacked" in a vertical fashion, so for fun, goof around with your ears (and mind) and listen to all the notes vertically, all at the same time, and try to follow each lyric line (each "tune") across, but "hearing" all the notes at the same time each measure.
For those with a liking (or even a possible enjoyment) for classical, here's an example of what I think about JS Bach being transcendent -- powerful to the point of almost awe and magic. It goes a bit to the point I was making about how we often look for some complexity in our entertainment, in our music, to challenge our minds.
For sheer scale, and the ability to string soooo many notes together played so quickly for so long, and have them still come out as a coherent melody of sorts, Bach is unsurpassed. For sheer "throw-weight of notes" Bach is a battleship among composers. Bach ruthlessly oppresses the musicians who must play his inundated compositions. He also demands that close attention be paid by his audience, lest they miss some clever turn of phrase. All very elegant indeed. So elegant in fact, that if, on some of his works, one takes his cursor and skips a minute now and then, the music continues as if nothing has happened, nothing has been lost, there is a kind of magical continuity between wherever you stop, and wherever you start again.
Bach was most prolific, and within such a vast body of work one is sure to find many memorable themes, however I don't consider him a real tunesmith. He is much more a musical scientist of sorts, and I get the feeling that he wrote a lot of music for its own sake, to push the envelope of what can be written, can be played, and can be listened to, and just maybe, appreciated.
When desiring classical music, I find myself more comfortable with composers motivated by a less esoteric sense of purpose. The more down to earth creations of Handel, Telemann, Charpentier, Pachelbel, and others, are as visual as they are aural, able to create in the mind's eye the vision of a time and place long ago and far away. You are there, teleported to the brilliant court of the Sun King himself, to a great Cathedral, to a parade of the mounted band and the chevalier of the Maison Du Roi. Fanfares, dances, chamber music, dinners, carousels, jousts, concerts, worship and even the king's bedtime all called for tailored masterpiece compositions. And they got them, in spades. Elevator music on a grand scale, a soundtrack scored to every aspect of life.
But then, sometimes, Bach hits the spot. Gotta love it.
Well, horse, you get 2 gold stars just for using "lest" correctly in a sentence! ha ha ... not to mention "chevalier" or "Maison Du Roi"!
Nice reply, dude, and thanks. Great music is essentially immortal. And some of it connects you to the creation, I firmly believe. Some composers have a direct pathway to that amazing power. I think this when I hear Beethoven's violin concerto, Mozart's piano concerto 21, Handel's Messiah, other great works. And of course Bach. Horse, if you appreciate just listening to some amazing music, I can tell you that performing it is a thousand times more thrilling. Imagine being one of the 11 principal cast, standing on stage and singing in the finale of Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro", or singing the great fugue of Mozart's Requiem "Kyrie" or doing a special one-time solo of Handel's "The trumpet shall sound!" And whhen we did Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana" I was drenched in sweat afterward (Carmina Burana, everyone knows the music, few know the title) this is the best video I could find:
My sister spoke of a little science-fantasy adventure: Scientists manufacture a microphone small enough to fit inside an atom. So they tie it to a fishing line and lower it into the center of an atom, and switch it on. What's they'd hear would be a Bach fugue.
I'll repost this: “Beethoven tells you what it's like to be Beethoven and Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe.” Douglas Adams
Y'all who really haven't become interested in classical music, try Beethoven's piano concerto #5 (the Emperor concerto) or Mozart's piano concerto #21.
Reason I pick concertos as a good intro piece is because they have that single solo instrument that we can hear "sing" along with the orchestra's accompaniment, as the solo and the orchestra go back and forth with the theme, sometimes in harmony, sometimes contrasting. And even for newbies, that musical riff is there to appreciate. These 2 concertos are also very attainable (two of the most famous ever), and also have extremely "tuneful" themes that are very easy to follow and nod along with. Just sayin'
Horse, if you appreciate just listening to some amazing music, I can tell you that performing it is a thousand times more thrilling. Imagine being one of the 11 principal cast, standing on stage and singing in the finale of Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro", or singing the great fugue of Mozart's Requiem "Kyrie" or doing a special one-time solo of Handel's "The trumpet shall sound!" And whhen we did Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana" I was drenched in sweat afterward (Carmina Burana, everyone knows the music, few know the title) this is the best video I could find:
“Beethoven tells you what it's like to be Beethoven and Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe.” Douglas Adams
Orff's Carmina Burana is one of the great things about John Boorman's dark epic "Excalibur" (1981). Sadly, I have never performed any of the music I love, and while talented, I have only really mastered the tape deck, and radio. I've promised my kids I'll take up iPod one of these days. Is it difficult?
I am amazed at how well Japanese conductors, orchestras and choruses have taken to Western music. The quality of their performances rival anything to be found in either the Old World or the New. And they do it all without castrati. On a lighter note, check this out - it's only 2 and a half minutes, but worth every second:
The Japanese are prone somewhat to the same problem that the Russians used to have, rigid performances that are technically fine but lacking in soul. This is somewhat of course dependent on their culture.
Seiji Ozawa is a special case. Although he's Japanese, all his training was in the US, Germany, Austria, and England, and he's more of a universal citizen. He's also highly emotional and his conducting is some of my favorite, as I prefer a faster tempo and he sure delivers on that. For symphonic music, I generally rely on his Boston Philharmonic conducted music, about the best you can get anywhere. His version of Carmina Burana w. the Boston Phil is my fave!
The 3 conductors whom I trust the most are Seiji Ozawa, Georg Solti, and James Levine (for opera). --- for those who may not know, a conductor is critical in a classical orchestral piece. The conductor puts on a very personal stamp, setting the tempo, emphasizing brisk or intense passages (or blending them), and so on. I personally prefer my music quite brisk in tempo and not ponderous and draggy, so if you may be shopping for a good classical orchestral recording, check out those 3 conductors if you like a sharper, more dynamic, and faster line.
Replies
You must mean you don't care for today's country music. There is very little "country" on most of today's so-called country music radio stations, but to say that Cash and Haggard aren't country is very wrong.
Don't have any idea about summer of 42 having never seen the movie in the first place...
From your list, the only bands / musicians I've not seen live are Moby, CSN, Doors, and Moody Blues. Everyone else, yes. Add to that the Band, Dire Straits, Queen, Springsteen.
Best "musically" I ever saw, the Band. Best guitar, Clapton any time, all through. Group I never saw and really wanted to, Doors. Most exciting, Jimi or Stones. Worst, Dylan (as you know he had a habit of blowing hot/cold and I caught him on a very very cold tour). Saw him 3 times total, the other 2 were excellent. Most surprisingly fine: Springsteen. Concert I enjoyed a lot (I think) but cannot remember much about it: Jimi.
I just never considered Cash or Haggard country. IMO they fit into a unique nitch somewhere between folk and rock with a slight touch of blues and rockabilly thrown in.
That's absolutely right—but folk/rock/blues/rockabilly... mix them all together and what you get, in my opinion, fits under the umbrella called "country." Cash performed songs in each of those categories. Same with Haggard. His western swing stuff is very jazzy with trumpets and clarinets.
New or old, some country music is wonderful, some is just awful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_%2742
Summer of 42' great move with Jennifer O'neal '
The soundtrack.
The film's soundtrack consists almost entirely of compositions by Michel Legrand, many of which are variants upon "The Summer Knows", the film's theme. Lyrics are by Marilyn and Alan Bergman. In addition to Legrand's scoring, the film also features the song "Hold Tight" by The Andrews Sisters and the theme from Now, Voyager.
Summer of '42: Original Motion Picture Score
No. Title Length
1. "Summer of '42 (Main Theme)" 3:51
2. "Summer Song" 4:21
3. "The Bacchanal" 1:48
4. "Lonely Two" 2:04
5. "The Danger" 2:13
6. "Montage: But Not Picasso / Full Awakening" 3:32
7. "High I.Q" 2:11
8. "The Summer Knows" 1:47
9. "The Entrance to Reality" 3:04
10. "La Guerre" 3:15
11. "Los Manos de Muerto" 3:29
12. "Awakening Awareness" 2:26
13. "And All the Time" 1:43
Total length:
35:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_%2742
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Iron Maiden. Tonight in Raleigh, Friday in Nashville, then St Louis,Kansas City,Corpus, Vegas,
the list goes on through the 12th.So far seems like nice guy's, older than I expected. Steve Harris
seems to be a hoot. They like the plane a lot and may want us to continue on to Brazil for another
two weeks.
Aside from the funny typo, I have the same feeling about that as I do with most soundtracks. Meh. Michel LeGrand is a pop musician (and French), and I generally don't like pop music. That, or any other sort of "watered down" or "feel good" music. Such as, for example, pop-rock vs classic rock, pop-classical vs genuine classical. I don't think others who like that music are wrong, it's just not for me. I think of it as "elevator music" or "mall music".
This doesn't detract from listening to great music soundtracks in a film, and as we know, it's a solid part of any terrific movie, how the excellent music can help drive the dramatic, action, or romantic themes. But it's just not authentic classical nor jazz nor rock.
An analogy might help... When we were little kids we might play tic-tac-toe (the 9-square simple version) until we learned that it's impossible to lose if you either go first and check the center, or go second and check a corner. After that, the "game" aspects of this were lost and we eventually settled on more complex, unpredictable games, like chess or poker or bridge or whatever (why I still love chess, for example). In other words, the complexity is a challenge for our adult minds.
We enjoy a good thriller movie, in which we enjoy the tricks that the plot runs us through, the bad guy being revealed, where not everything is as clear as a kid's comic book. Sure, we love to kick back, too, to just watch a goofy comedy movie or some silly childish thing, but we're more "turned on" intellectually by more complex stuff, whether it's a good spy thriller novel or western or whatever.
Same for music (and by that, I mean music that you specifically take the time to listen to, either by going to a concert or buying the CDs, etc). An adult mind is most interested in adult stuff, simply because it challenges the brain, which is part of the enjoyment.
Which is one reason I like classical music more than the other types that I also like. It's intentionally complex (aka a Bach fugue) and it's a fun challenge to the mind to let the brain be a bit buzzed by such an overwhelming intensity. Not all the time, of course -- I'm perfectly happy to drive along while listening to a CD of Willie or Clapton or whomever. But when I'm looking for some real "puzzle for the mind" I'll pop in a Beethoven symphony or Mozart concerto or a Verdi opera.
I freely admit to classical music being an acquired affection, like single malt scotch.
I appreciate where you're coming from but I think you got a little discombobulated there.
If you mix Country, gospel, bluegrass and the blues then you get rock-n-roll. If you disagree then watch the Last Waltz again.
Regarding Cash and Haggard, if I may channel David Allan Coe, if that ain't country, i'll kiss your a s s
He mentions Cash here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ewOMNqkYA
I have to ask, any religious practices going on that make the hair stand up on your head?
Here are 2 cuts, recorded in the 20s by the great Bach scholar and musician Wanda Landowska, who was almost singlehanded in her revival of appreciation for Bach in the early 20th century, Paris in the Roaring Twenties, and of course America where she & hubby came to live.
This is Bach's Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue in D-minor, BWV 903 (Bach compositions are numbered chronologically, sort of like Mozart's are). It's played on a special "period" harpsichord, manufactured to Landowska's specs to be the same as those Bach used. The YouTube cut is in 2 parts, the Fantasia and then the Fugue (a Fugue is just the classical term for a multiple-part "song", like a round that kids sing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdCU8JLehf0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kafL-0C58q8
With either piece, understand that a harpsichord is similar to a piano but it has 2 manuals (keyboards) and stops like an organ. And what's amazing here is how fast ol' Wanda is on the keys. Realize that you can't skim your fingers sideways along the keyboard like a piano, but instead you have to press down firmly on each key. So when she plays the fast runs, like midway in the Fantasy, or plays these immensely complex functions such as in the 3-part Fugue, you realize just how hard this is to play.
The precision is almost scary. In the Fantasia, check the run at 0:25 that picks up speed as she heads "downhill", at 2:15, at 6:06.
In the Fugue, check how each of the 3 parts starts, part 1 of course at the beginning, a simple little tune, then part 2 at 0:16, part 3 at 0:35, and how the 3 parts intertwine in and out, up an down. With a Fugue, it's kinda fun to listen "horizontally" instead of "linearally". By that, I mean that with conventional music, we listen to the lyrical line as it goes across the page, even if harmonies are added. But with a Fugue, the parts are "stacked" in a vertical fashion, so for fun, goof around with your ears (and mind) and listen to all the notes vertically, all at the same time, and try to follow each lyric line (each "tune") across, but "hearing" all the notes at the same time each measure.
For sheer scale, and the ability to string soooo many notes together played so quickly for so long, and have them still come out as a coherent melody of sorts, Bach is unsurpassed. For sheer "throw-weight of notes" Bach is a battleship among composers. Bach ruthlessly oppresses the musicians who must play his inundated compositions. He also demands that close attention be paid by his audience, lest they miss some clever turn of phrase. All very elegant indeed. So elegant in fact, that if, on some of his works, one takes his cursor and skips a minute now and then, the music continues as if nothing has happened, nothing has been lost, there is a kind of magical continuity between wherever you stop, and wherever you start again.
Bach was most prolific, and within such a vast body of work one is sure to find many memorable themes, however I don't consider him a real tunesmith. He is much more a musical scientist of sorts, and I get the feeling that he wrote a lot of music for its own sake, to push the envelope of what can be written, can be played, and can be listened to, and just maybe, appreciated.
When desiring classical music, I find myself more comfortable with composers motivated by a less esoteric sense of purpose. The more down to earth creations of Handel, Telemann, Charpentier, Pachelbel, and others, are as visual as they are aural, able to create in the mind's eye the vision of a time and place long ago and far away. You are there, teleported to the brilliant court of the Sun King himself, to a great Cathedral, to a parade of the mounted band and the chevalier of the Maison Du Roi. Fanfares, dances, chamber music, dinners, carousels, jousts, concerts, worship and even the king's bedtime all called for tailored masterpiece compositions. And they got them, in spades. Elevator music on a grand scale, a soundtrack scored to every aspect of life.
But then, sometimes, Bach hits the spot. Gotta love it.
Nice reply, dude, and thanks. Great music is essentially immortal. And some of it connects you to the creation, I firmly believe. Some composers have a direct pathway to that amazing power. I think this when I hear Beethoven's violin concerto, Mozart's piano concerto 21, Handel's Messiah, other great works. And of course Bach. Horse, if you appreciate just listening to some amazing music, I can tell you that performing it is a thousand times more thrilling. Imagine being one of the 11 principal cast, standing on stage and singing in the finale of Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro", or singing the great fugue of Mozart's Requiem "Kyrie" or doing a special one-time solo of Handel's "The trumpet shall sound!" And whhen we did Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana" I was drenched in sweat afterward (Carmina Burana, everyone knows the music, few know the title) this is the best video I could find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-DgS75lfmw
My sister spoke of a little science-fantasy adventure: Scientists manufacture a microphone small enough to fit inside an atom. So they tie it to a fishing line and lower it into the center of an atom, and switch it on. What's they'd hear would be a Bach fugue.
I'll repost this: “Beethoven tells you what it's like to be Beethoven and Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe.” Douglas Adams
Y'all who really haven't become interested in classical music, try Beethoven's piano concerto #5 (the Emperor concerto) or Mozart's piano concerto #21.
Reason I pick concertos as a good intro piece is because they have that single solo instrument that we can hear "sing" along with the orchestra's accompaniment, as the solo and the orchestra go back and forth with the theme, sometimes in harmony, sometimes contrasting. And even for newbies, that musical riff is there to appreciate. These 2 concertos are also very attainable (two of the most famous ever), and also have extremely "tuneful" themes that are very easy to follow and nod along with. Just sayin'
Orff's Carmina Burana is one of the great things about John Boorman's dark epic "Excalibur" (1981). Sadly, I have never performed any of the music I love, and while talented, I have only really mastered the tape deck, and radio. I've promised my kids I'll take up iPod one of these days. Is it difficult?
I am amazed at how well Japanese conductors, orchestras and choruses have taken to Western music. The quality of their performances rival anything to be found in either the Old World or the New. And they do it all without castrati. On a lighter note, check this out - it's only 2 and a half minutes, but worth every second:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDeU42u2s2Y&list=FLfTPTvADBFU7k-kFW9xdNug&index=12
Enjoy.
The Japanese are prone somewhat to the same problem that the Russians used to have, rigid performances that are technically fine but lacking in soul. This is somewhat of course dependent on their culture.
Seiji Ozawa is a special case. Although he's Japanese, all his training was in the US, Germany, Austria, and England, and he's more of a universal citizen. He's also highly emotional and his conducting is some of my favorite, as I prefer a faster tempo and he sure delivers on that. For symphonic music, I generally rely on his Boston Philharmonic conducted music, about the best you can get anywhere. His version of Carmina Burana w. the Boston Phil is my fave!
The 3 conductors whom I trust the most are Seiji Ozawa, Georg Solti, and James Levine (for opera). --- for those who may not know, a conductor is critical in a classical orchestral piece. The conductor puts on a very personal stamp, setting the tempo, emphasizing brisk or intense passages (or blending them), and so on. I personally prefer my music quite brisk in tempo and not ponderous and draggy, so if you may be shopping for a good classical orchestral recording, check out those 3 conductors if you like a sharper, more dynamic, and faster line.
Thanks for the Gozira music!