I was asked by an eighth grader recently what sort of music I like. I replied that I like Classical music and various kinds of chant and choral work. She said, "Oh that's old stuff, like from the '70s, isn't it?" His Traddiness nearly choked on the air he breathed.
We must remember that we live in a post-Beatles society and almost all music is now saturated with traces of their subversive influence, traces of immature sexuality, rebellion against a now gone social order, and inane rhythm.
As a rule of thumb I avoid most all music that has a bass line and drums, making an exception for some jazz work. I know very little about "metal music" given its relative lack of popularity where I went to high school, but I am more than familiar with "rock n' roll." What an indictment it is that Elton John—a very unique individual to say the least—is by far one of the most "normal" and "talented" in his industry, especially since he has produced such insightful work as "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting." The Beatles take the cake in my book. Who could possibly top the word "I am the Walrus. I am the milkman. I am the egg man."
Music does not have to be intelligent or complicated to be enjoyable. Indeed a great deal of music is wonderful because of its lack of pretension and its brevity. Even a waltz can be soothing to the ear. Mozart made a career of writing such light music. Mozart also turned out great symphonies (41 being my favorite) and of course his Requiem Mass. While against the use of orchestras at Mass, I will say that his Requiem Mass is actually usable at a real Mass, given the modest length of the Kyrie, Offertory, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is purely a theatre piece.
Perhaps a cure for the youth would be a prescription to learn an actual instrument other than the guitar. I can think of no greater means of appreciating Bach than playing his work on an organ, nor a greater way of knowing Beethoven than by playing his piano works (that is how I came to love Beethoven). Regardless, the future generations must learn that [good] music predates them by much more than a generation or two.
What do you think of traditional folk music, particularly in its modern incarnations?
ReplyDeleteI like some of it. As someone with a bit of Scottish ancestry I cannot turn down a rendition of Loch Lommond!
DeleteI was an oddity growing up. On the one hand, I was the only kid among my secular friends who found any interest in Classical music. On the other, my family was the only one in our $$PX church that didn't believe that anything after Sinatra was satanic (small footnote: some of my family LOATHES Sinatra).
ReplyDeleteRock was good for a while, from Queen and ACDC until its death in the 90's. Metal (especially the ones that mix in Celtic and Folk) actually has musical value. There are some metalheads that consider men like Wagner and Edvard Grieg as the original "fathers" of metal.
POP (Peabrained Oriented Product) is not music. It is manufactured product based on whatever banal lyrics will sell to the public.
RAP = Retards Attempting Poetry.
I, a very active musician, have always been a lover of classical music. I do enjoy certain kinds of folk music as well, mostly Celtic. I don't mind some American folk music. I generally don't care for most music from the popular genres; although some of it is probably not bad per se, and might even have some value; while some of it certainly is bad per se.
ReplyDeleteUm, no milkman in I Am the Walrus. And it was intended to be silly. From Wikipedia: "Lennon received a letter from a pupil at Quarry Bank High School, which he had attended. The writer mentioned that the English master was making his class analyse Beatles' lyrics... Lennon, amused that a teacher was putting so much effort into understanding the Beatles' lyrics, decided to write in his next song [Walrus] the most confusing lyrics that he could."
ReplyDeleteMe: Deeply suspicious of classical music between Josquin des Prez and Arvo Part. Love British Isles folk. Marvel at the Beatles' inventiveness and melodic sense. Convinced that a plain voice steeped in rock/folk is much more amenable to schola work than one trained in opera.
I was listening to Elgar and Tchaikovsky when I was about 10 or 11. Until then I had heard the drivel on BBC Radio 2. My mother who was a dancing and sports teacher recorded records onto tape for easy use in her classes at school. There was quite a lot of Dvorak, Schubert and Schumann. I made the effort to appreciate "pop" and "rock" in the early 1970's as that was the sine qua non to getting on with other boys at school. Some of that stuff was a little paletable, like Simon & Garfunkel, but the rest was just noise.
ReplyDeleteI started the piano in 1967 and have played the organ since 1972. About the same time, I began to sing in our school chapel choir. I haven't looked back since, and have recently thrown myself into 4-part choral and vocal composition.
Interesting comment from "Cyrillist" about trained voices. I sang for many years without knowing anything about breathing, support and voice production, the lyrical style. I think there is a middle way between lyrical and untrained - unsupported. I have been very grateful for singing lessons.
I had no interest in music until my father bought me a tape of the waltzes of Strauss, which piqued my interest. I took up playing the piano shortly thereafter and learned Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto and the piano pieces of Beethoven. Over time I fell away from practice and now I can only sight read and play, having forgotten many of the great works I once committed to memory and losing much of the technical aspect of playing, too.
DeleteAnd having heard the "Sistine Screamers" attempt to sing I am in accord with Cyrillist!
I'm not opposed to vocal training per se, as long as it doesn't result in Canio or Brunhilde (but that's just me). (Father, is operatic singing what you mean by "the lyrical style?") Knowing about breathing, support, etc. can probably be of benefit to any type of singing, as long as the enhanced technique is kept in the service of the music and not made an end in itself (a great temptation). And yes, the latter can happen in folk and (especially) rock, too, although singing in those areas tends to be a more matter of just opening one's mouth and going for it. Anyway, a "middle way" would be great as long as the tone is kept even and pure; excessive vibrato in chant is just awful (although Cardinal Bartolucci may have disagreed).
DeleteYou seem to have a good measure of things. For the teacher I work with, "lyrical" means the manner of projecting the voice and using the whole body as a resonator - not necessarily with an extreme volume or vibrato. Evenness and stability of notes (sustained notes and melismatic passages) comes from good breathing, and the voice can be kept pure without vibrato, which is how I sing. I am English and not Italian!
Delete