Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollocks!
Jul 12th 2012, 5:47 am
#46
Chan eil aon chànan gu le
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: On the ning nang nong
Posts: 22,437
Jul 12th 2012, 5:52 am
#47
Melbourne Rock City
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,266
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Muse
Jul 12th 2012, 5:58 am
#49
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 65,493
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Yes they can, they can include anyone they want to. The main problem with U2 is Bono. Without him they'd be bearable.
Jul 12th 2012, 5:59 am
#50
Chan eil aon chànan gu le
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: On the ning nang nong
Posts: 22,437
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Abba, Westlife & Take That. 
Jul 12th 2012, 6:24 am
#51
Melbourne Rock City
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,266
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
T H E E A G L E S ! ! !
Jul 12th 2012, 7:22 am
#52
I'm Old Gregg!
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: A Former Bogan Colony in QLD
Posts: 8,460
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Jul 12th 2012, 7:30 am
#53
FREE TIBET
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,840
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Rolling bones,Mick jagger,what a twat
Jul 12th 2012, 8:00 am
#54
I'm Old Gregg!
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: A Former Bogan Colony in QLD
Posts: 8,460
Jul 12th 2012, 8:02 am
#55
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 65,493
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
I dunno, The Edge is just as much full of his own self importance too IMO
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H8dZwXnMrRU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H8dZwXnMrRU
Jul 13th 2012, 3:21 am
#57
not sure...
Joined: May 2007
Location: out in the boonies
Posts: 1,537
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
I dont doubt I'm playing it wrong - I cant find a way to make it sound musical and have always always struggled more with Bach than any other composers work.... but then to my ears nobody else manages to inject adequate musicality into Bach either! (Possible exception of a few jazz musicians who manage to inject some feeling into otherwise 'dry' material - but then is that still Bach?)
and I did say Mozart to a far far lesse extent. I dont have a problem particularly with Mozart - I just think the adoration is a little OTT.. He produced some OK stuff and there is a kind of purity and simplicity to a lot of his composition that others in the same era didnt quite manage to achieve.... but he did produce some really dull background music too... and music didnt really get expressive and emotional until the Classical ("C" not "c") period was well and truly over.
and I did say Mozart to a far far lesse extent. I dont have a problem particularly with Mozart - I just think the adoration is a little OTT.. He produced some OK stuff and there is a kind of purity and simplicity to a lot of his composition that others in the same era didnt quite manage to achieve.... but he did produce some really dull background music too... and music didnt really get expressive and emotional until the Classical ("C" not "c") period was well and truly over.
I agree that some of the adoration is OTT, people get evangelical about his music (or more about him, coz you know, they've seen Amadeus and feel sorry for him, boo Salieri..
) but he simply is one of the greatest composers the world has ever known.
Jul 13th 2012, 3:37 am
#58
...giving optimism a go?!
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane (leafy, hilly western suburbs)
Posts: 2,202
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
I have played the requiem. Fairly recently too, and for the record I agree that it has some of Mozarts most emotive work.
I also agree the good bit of Mozart is the apparent simplicity - there is a 'cleanness' to Mozart that is not found in anyone elses work. (Perhaps I've overstated the case and including in the title of thread with the word '$hite' is a little harsh - but I stand by 'overrated'!)
But I disagree that its complex. If his orchestral stuff is hard (and I dont share your view there) its because its hard to play such simple music *well*. Its so open and simple that any missed tonal inflexion or clumsy dynamic really stands out....
In terms of complexity and historical significance a slight indicator may be that in the duration of a 3 year degree focusing on Music history I had perhaps a 45 minute lecture on Mozart - a mere fleeting mention - footnotes in passing. By comparison there was at least half a term of analysis of Bach, weeks and weeks of discussing Mahler & Strauss. What felt like most of a year talking about Stravinsky, Schoenberg and a bunch of others in the early 20thC... I'm not saying he wasnt a significant figure - clearly that'd be ridiculous - but he didnt really break the mold at all - he just did Classical very well....and a lot of it....
Greatest composer ever? tough call to make... Personally I'd rate Chopin higher for sheer ability to cut straight to the heart of an emotion - but then you could offer the criticism that Chopin never did ANYTHING apart from Piano so was very narrow in scope.... Mozart at least had output in plenty of different styles....
(I'm, prepared to accept that my views of the Classical period our soured by many many years as a child of being subjected to playing Mozart and Haydn piano sonatas, string quartets and early symphonies.... When I graduated away from teachers stuck in the mid 1700's and discovered Romanticism I THEN discovered the joy, pain, angst, fear and adulation of a full range of emotions that music was capable of communicating and for me - at THAT point music 'clicked').
I also agree the good bit of Mozart is the apparent simplicity - there is a 'cleanness' to Mozart that is not found in anyone elses work. (Perhaps I've overstated the case and including in the title of thread with the word '$hite' is a little harsh - but I stand by 'overrated'!)
But I disagree that its complex. If his orchestral stuff is hard (and I dont share your view there) its because its hard to play such simple music *well*. Its so open and simple that any missed tonal inflexion or clumsy dynamic really stands out....
In terms of complexity and historical significance a slight indicator may be that in the duration of a 3 year degree focusing on Music history I had perhaps a 45 minute lecture on Mozart - a mere fleeting mention - footnotes in passing. By comparison there was at least half a term of analysis of Bach, weeks and weeks of discussing Mahler & Strauss. What felt like most of a year talking about Stravinsky, Schoenberg and a bunch of others in the early 20thC... I'm not saying he wasnt a significant figure - clearly that'd be ridiculous - but he didnt really break the mold at all - he just did Classical very well....and a lot of it....
Greatest composer ever? tough call to make... Personally I'd rate Chopin higher for sheer ability to cut straight to the heart of an emotion - but then you could offer the criticism that Chopin never did ANYTHING apart from Piano so was very narrow in scope.... Mozart at least had output in plenty of different styles....
(I'm, prepared to accept that my views of the Classical period our soured by many many years as a child of being subjected to playing Mozart and Haydn piano sonatas, string quartets and early symphonies.... When I graduated away from teachers stuck in the mid 1700's and discovered Romanticism I THEN discovered the joy, pain, angst, fear and adulation of a full range of emotions that music was capable of communicating and for me - at THAT point music 'clicked').
Last edited by DadAgain; Jul 13th 2012 at 3:47 am.
