I would like to know whats OT's opinion on one of the most overplayed and reconizable clas sical piece. I personally like it, but after hearing it everywhere, got kinda tired of it.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I would like to know whats OT's opinion on one of the most overplayed and reconizable clas sical piece. I personally like it, but after hearing it everywhere, got kinda tired of it.
It's never really been a song I like in the first place. And I don't dislike classical music, this song just never did anything for me.
On a smiliar note, I don't understand why that Canon D guy on Youtube with the guitar became so popular either-- there are much more talented guitar players out there.
JerryC?It's never really been a song I like in the first place. And I don't dislike classical music, this song just never did anything for me.
On a smiliar note, I don't understand why that guy on Youtube with the guitar became so popular either-- there are much more talented guitar players out there.
Luncbox1
[QUOTE="Luncbox1"]JerryC? the Canon in D song by the kid with the guitar. It's one of the top-rated videos on Youtube.It's never really been a song I like in the first place. And I don't dislike classical music, this song just never did anything for me.
On a smiliar note, I don't understand why that guy on Youtube with the guitar became so popular either-- there are much more talented guitar players out there.
Lonelynight
[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="Luncbox1"]JerryC? the Canon in D song by the kid with the guitar. It's one of the top-rated videos on Youtube.It's never really been a song I like in the first place. And I don't dislike classical music, this song just never did anything for me.
On a smiliar note, I don't understand why that guy on Youtube with the guitar became so popular either-- there are much more talented guitar players out there.
Luncbox1
Dude that kid's rendition was amazing at the very least.
the Canon in D song by the kid with the guitar. It's one of the top-rated videos on Youtube.[QUOTE="Luncbox1"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"] JerryC?Pirate700
Dude that kid's rendition was amazing at the very least.
It was good, but like I said-- I've seen things on guitar on Youtube that make his thing look like Chopsticks. So why did his video get rated so high?[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="Luncbox1"]JerryC? the Canon in D song by the kid with the guitar. It's one of the top-rated videos on Youtube. funtwo?It's never really been a song I like in the first place. And I don't dislike classical music, this song just never did anything for me.
On a smiliar note, I don't understand why that guy on Youtube with the guitar became so popular either-- there are much more talented guitar players out there.
Luncbox1
[QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="Luncbox1"] the Canon in D song by the kid with the guitar. It's one of the top-rated videos on Youtube.Luncbox1
Dude that kid's rendition was amazing at the very least.
It was good, but like I said-- I've seen things on guitar on Youtube that make his thing look like Chopsticks. So why did his video get rated so high?Post a link to one then. It is not physically possible to play at a level that would make that kids performance look like "chopstick" (whatever that means) unless you are wildly exaggerating.
[QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="Luncbox1"] the Canon in D song by the kid with the guitar. It's one of the top-rated videos on Youtube.Luncbox1
Dude that kid's rendition was amazing at the very least.
It was good, but like I said-- I've seen things on guitar on Youtube that make his thing look like Chopsticks. So why did his video get rated so high? The tune of the melody was probably more familiar to most people.It was good, but like I said-- I've seen things on guitar on Youtube that make his thing look like Chopsticks. So why did his video get rated so high?[QUOTE="Luncbox1"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]
Dude that kid's rendition was amazing at the very least.
Pirate700
Post a link to one then. It is not physically possible to play at a level that would make that kids performance look like "chopstick" (whatever that means) unless you are wildly exaggerating.
I don't have time to go searching through Youtube, sorry. I have to go drop off my job acceptance package downtown. (and please believe me, this isn't a cop-out. Any other time I would have accepted your challenge :P )Pachelbel's Canon? I absolutely hate it. If I had a nickle for every time I've been asked to play that at someone's wedding, I'd... well, I... I guess I'd have an extra dollar or two.
Hate. Hate hate hate. :x It's so repetitive...
Funky_Llama
Feel pity for the poor cello. Eight notes. That's it.
It was good, but like I said-- I've seen things on guitar on Youtube that make his thing look like Chopsticks. So why did his video get rated so high?[QUOTE="Luncbox1"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]
Dude that kid's rendition was amazing at the very least.
Pirate700
Post a link to one then. It is not physically possible to play at a level that would make that kids performance look like "chopstick" (whatever that means) unless you are wildly exaggerating.
dude! seriously!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hof5_i8PuAg
Gustavo pwns it!
chorus is crazy!
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]
[QUOTE="Luncbox1"] It was good, but like I said-- I've seen things on guitar on Youtube that make his thing look like Chopsticks. So why did his video get rated so high?sAndroid17
Post a link to one then. It is not physically possible to play at a level that would make that kids performance look like "chopstick" (whatever that means) unless you are wildly exaggerating.
dude! seriously!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hof5_i8PuAg
Gustavo pwns it!
chorus is crazy!
That did rock insanely hard. 8)dude! seriously![QUOTE="sAndroid17"]
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]
Post a link to one then. It is not physically possible to play at a level that would make that kids performance look like "chopstick" (whatever that means) unless you are wildly exaggerating.
Pirate700
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hof5_i8PuAg
Gustavo pwns it!
chorus is crazy!
That did rock insanely hard. 8) it aint called Canon ROCK for no-reason :PIt's one of the most over-rated pieces of cIassical music in the entire history of the genre. It's simplistic and uninteresting, but it does very well for itself because it has a simple tune that is repeated over and over again, just like all famous pop music, providing an illusion of great complexity with simple variations. So to the untrained ear, it sounds fantastically complex.
But then, it's not at all uncommon for the general public to latch onto mediocre compositions. Beethoven's Fur Elise, Mozart's Ein Klein Nachtmusik, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker... none of these are great works by the standards the composers set in their other works. And incidentally, the same is true of Pachelbel. He wrote some fantastic organ fugues and many beautiful choral works which are sadly never heard. Instead we get Canon. And Canon. And Canon. And Canon again. And then a bunch of modern composers rip it off because they think they're something special because they use a simplistic seqeunce, and we get to hear Canon more and more. Everywhere you go, there it is to haunt you.
So like Funky Llama, I hate it. It will never go away, because now it's a traditional wedding tune, and people aren't going to stop getting married any time soon. And Pachelbel will never be duly recognized for his much better works. Poor guy.
Pachelbel's Canon? I absolutely hate it. If I had a nickle for every time I've been asked to play that at someone's wedding, I'd... well, I... I guess I'd have an extra dollar or two.
Oleg_Huzwog
:lol:
A man can do great things with a couple of dollars.... well, actually no, he can't.
Out of curiosity, can you recommend some good classical pieces? I find that classical music is the most difficult to separate the good from the bad, because all the songs are just musical phrases mashed together like "mezzo forte in Bflat minor Op. 22 by Brahms" or stuff like that. I've just never had much luck delving into the genre, but not for lack of trying :PIt's one of the most over-rated pieces of cIassical music in the entire history of the genre. It's simplistic and uninteresting, but it does very well for itself because it has a simple tune that is repeated over and over again, providing an illusion of great complexity with simple variations. So to the untrained ear, it sounds fantastically complex.
But then, it's not at all uncommon for the general public to latch onto mediocre compositions. Beethoven's Fur Elise, Mozart's Ein Klein Nachtmusik, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker... none of these are great works by the standards the composers set in their other works. And incidentally, the same is true of Pachelbel. He wrote some fantastic organ fugues and many beautiful choral works which are sadly never heard. Instead we get Canon. And Canon. And Canon. And Canon again. And then a bunch of modern composers rip it off because they think they're something special because they use a simplistic seqeunce, and we get to hear Canon more and more. Everywhere you go, there it is to haunt you.
So like Funky Llama, I hate it. It will never go away, because now it's a traditional wedding tune, and people aren't going to stop getting married any time soon. And Pachelbel will never be duly recognized for his much better works. Poor guy.
pianist
Out of curiosity, can you recommend some good classical pieces? I find that classical music is the most difficult to separate the good from the bad, because all the songs are just musical phrases mashed together like "mezzo forte in Bflat minor Op. 22 by Brahms" or stuff like that. I've just never had much luck delving into the genre, but not for lack of trying :PLuncbox1
Oi... this is a difficult question to answer because your taste may be very different from mine, and I have no idea what you have and have not heard. When I talk about great cIassical music, I usually no longer refer to specific works, but rather composers and eras. Personally, there isn't much in Brahms's or Chopin's entire outputs that I dislike, and you can also do very well with late Dvorak, Liszt after his virtuoso period, Beethoven (especially in the mid-late years), or Mahler. Debussy, Franck, and Ravel can give you something with a more French flavour, and Verdi's Requiem is one of the greatest Italian contributions to the Romantic era. For Russians, I like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff a great deal (especially their art songs, or 'lieder'), and Shostakovich and Prokofiev can give you something different and special. Also, check out Arvo Part from more recent times. Very quiet and tranquil... I love it. Start with Te Deum or Spiegel Im Spiegel. But really, it boils down to personally discovering what floats your boat, and being aware that what you hate today may later become your favourite music as you acquire a greater understanding of cIassical music through your studies, personal or formal. I disliked Brahms immensely in my teenage years. Now he's my favourite composer.
In retrospect, the best way to evaluate music and find stuff you like is to pick a single composer, then collect a cross-section of his works. Try to get a variety of pieces from different periods in the composer's life and with different musical titles (so don't just pick a bunch of symphonies or piano trios). If nothing strikes you, you pick another composer (maybe from a different nation or era this time) and do the same thing. If even one work by the composer is appealing to you, chances are very good that there will be others. So you look into that composer's life. Find out when he lived, where he lived, and who his musical contemporaries and especially friends were, because there's a great chance you'll like some of their music, too.
The real joy of cIassical music comes in self-discovery, so just keep listening, and keep a catalogue of those pieces that strike a real chord with you on first listening. They'll guide you to your next target. And... I can't stress this enough... if you ever want to fully appreciate this music, you'd do well to study it. The history and especially the theory of music are extremely important to understanding this complex music, especially given that the process of composition is very often just as interesting and beautiful as the resulting sound. Symphony, sonata, trio, minuet, scherzo and so forth aren't just random words to me. They provide expectations about what the form will be, what the instrumentation will be, and what I should be listening for, and that is very helpful in appreciating the work, especially when it takes a creative deviation from those norms, which you will actually recognize as creative! Listening skills are important, too, but you can't develop those until you know WHAT you should be listening for in the first place. If you don't know, it's just pretty sound, and you're only getting half of the story.
D A B F# G D G A
D A B F# G D G A
D A B F# G D G A
D A B F# G D G A
D A B F# G D G A
D A B F# G D G A
D A B F# G D G A
Aaaaargh!!! I can't take it anymore!!!!
[QUOTE="FUBAR24"]lmao for all those who dont care you it youll love this guypianist
It's funny because it's true.
Whats funny is that I've more seen people talk/link his video more than I've seen all those examples he gave last year combined.Ooh, ooh, and his concertos! :PI like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff a great deal (especially their art songs, or 'lieder')
pianist
Unusual to see Rachmaninoff recommended for his Lieder, by the way. Which ones do you have in mind?
Have you seen 'Ultimate Canon Rock'? Someone spliced like 30 different vids into one, it's really good imo. One of the first vids I've ever Favorited.I havent heard the guitar one on youtube until now... It was amazing...
Raikoh_
Why do people use that piece as a wedding tune anyway?It's one of the most over-rated pieces of cIassical music in the entire history of the genre. It's simplistic and uninteresting, but it does very well for itself because it has a simple tune that is repeated over and over again, just like all famous pop music, providing an illusion of great complexity with simple variations. So to the untrained ear, it sounds fantastically complex.
But then, it's not at all uncommon for the general public to latch onto mediocre compositions. Beethoven's Fur Elise, Mozart's Ein Klein Nachtmusik, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker... none of these are great works by the standards the composers set in their other works. And incidentally, the same is true of Pachelbel. He wrote some fantastic organ fugues and many beautiful choral works which are sadly never heard. Instead we get Canon. And Canon. And Canon. And Canon again. And then a bunch of modern composers rip it off because they think they're something special because they use a simplistic seqeunce, and we get to hear Canon more and more. Everywhere you go, there it is to haunt you.
So like Funky Llama, I hate it. It will never go away, because now it's a traditional wedding tune, and people aren't going to stop getting married any time soon. And Pachelbel will never be duly recognized for his much better works. Poor guy.
pianist
It was good, but like I said-- I've seen things on guitar on Youtube that make his thing look like Chopsticks. So why did his video get rated so high?Luncbox1
Post a link to one then. It is not physically possible to play at a level that would make that kids performance look like "chopstick" (whatever that means) unless you are wildly exaggerating.
I don't have time to go searching through Youtube, sorry. I have to go drop off my job acceptance package downtown. (and please believe me, this isn't a cop-out. Any other time I would have accepted your challenge :P ) just youtube "rpoland" and they are all the greatest guitarists in the world on on label.[QUOTE="Luncbox1"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]I don't have time to go searching through Youtube, sorry. I have to go drop off my job acceptance package downtown. (and please believe me, this isn't a cop-out. Any other time I would have accepted your challenge :P ) just youtube and they are all the greatest guitarists in the world on on label. Ya, they are amazing.Post a link to one then. It is not physically possible to play at a level that would make that kids performance look like "chopstick" (whatever that means) unless you are wildly exaggerating.
Spicy-McHaggis
It's one of the most over-rated pieces of cIassical music in the entire history of the genre. It's simplistic and uninteresting, but it does very well for itself because it has a simple tune that is repeated over and over again, just like all famous pop music, providing an illusion of great complexity with simple variations. So to the untrained ear, it sounds fantastically complex.pianist
I don't understand this complaint at all. Baroque music isn't classical. It doesn't involve complex polyphony and counterpoint to the degree classical and contemporary classical does. Baroque is from a time when music was still a bit simple, or "popish", although that term should never be applied to this form of music.
Canon's and chaconnes tend to be repetitive, for that is the very nature of their structures and the genre itself.
It's my favourite piece along with Beethoven's Fur Elise, Bach's Air on a G string and Mozart's Eine Kleine NachtmusikBrutal_Elitegs
If it's nacht musik, what is it?
[QUOTE="Brutal_Elitegs"]It's my favourite piece along with Beethoven's Fur Elise, Bach's Air on a G string and Mozart's Eine Kleine NachtmusikOleg_Huzwog
If it's nacht musik, what is it?
Ahem. >_>
It's easy and overused I'm learning it right now actually though I usually play it fast, I prefer it that way.
I don't understand this complaint at all. Baroque music isn't classical. It doesn't involve complex polyphony and counterpoint to the degree classical and contemporary classical does. Baroque is from a time when music was still a bit simple, or "popish", although that term should never be applied to this form of music.
Canon's and chaconnes tend to be repetitive, for that is the very nature of their structures and the genre itself.
VoodooGamer
Baroque music IS cIassical. It isn't CIassical. Big C for the period itself, little c for the entire genre that people like to use to describe everything that was written before about the 1920s or so. And the complaint stands - it doesn't matter what era it was written in, as simplistic music written in the 1600s is as simplistic as simplistic music written in the modern day. And pieces like Fur Elise and Pachelbel's Canon are a testament to why popular music does so well for itself. Easily hummable tunes, simple form, much repetition. In other words, easy for someone with no musical education and little listening experience to understand and remember. For those of us who enjoy more 'meat' in our music, though, it doesn't do the trick. It is incredibly boring. The compositional device isn't the problem here; canons don't have to be boring. Studying J.S. Bach's Goldberg Variations will reveal what great things can be done with a simple idea like the canon. But they're not things that any composer could do, which is why Bach is special to us.
Also, I think you have been misinformed about the Baroque era, especially in the region Pachelbel hails from. Rigid and demanding counterpoint was the name of the game for the Germans, and Pachelbel was no exception. He was a contemporary of J.S. Bach, who was perhaps the greatest contrapuntalist of all music history, and Pachelbel too was a great contrapuntalist - something which is not evidenced in Canon in D, but which IS evidenced in his organ music and choral works. He was also one of the most important composers in the Baroque because of his contributions to the chorale prelude and fugue... which few people realize, because the only work they've ever heard by Pachelbel is Canon in D. As for the CIassical era, composers largely tried to escape from this severe and serious styIe of composition that had been going on since the Renaissance, turning instead to an emphasis on single-line melodies, clean textures, and simple accompaniment. So if anything, it was the CIassical era that didn't involve complex polyphony and counterpoint to the degree that Baroque and Renaissance music did. You need only look at the number of fugues, chorales, and other strict contrapuntal forms of composition composed in eras after the Baroque to understand that. And pop music? It's been around for as long as secular music has been around. Counterpoint and polyphony was an invention of the sacred music world initially, but folk song existed long before that, and obviously it wasn't polyphonic.
Bear in mind that I'm not attacking simplicity here. I'm attacking simplistic music. Simple music can be incredibly beautiful, but simplistic music is just boring to me. It's a fine line when you try to write a simple composition.
Why do people use that piece as a wedding tune anyway?Lonelynight
No idea. It was likely chosen because of the mood it sets (it IS very appropriate wedding background music after all), and once the tradition was set, it could not be broken. If I recall, though, this was a rather recently developed tradition, because the Canon was largely ignored until its initial publication in the early 20th century. It wasn't even recorded until the 1940s, when the conductor of the Boston Pops orchestra (fitting group to play and popularize it) did so. But if there's a more specific reason that it became a traditional wedding piece, I'd love to know. Trivia's always fun.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment