this thread is hilarious, talk about your all time total ignorance!!

anyone sighting that the beatles were indeed not musically significant, well I guess they should keep those ideas to themselves, and indeed anyone suggesting that paul mc cartney (one of, or more likely THE greatest song writer of the 20th Century) is actually not very good, well all I can say is that I worry that we both like prince's music, because your tastes are obviously way off the mark.

Interms of musicianship, paul mc cartney may not nessecarily be into musical wanking all over his tunes, like prince does too often, less we forget that a great deal of early beetles tracks were done in one take, on a two track. It takes enormous skill to be able to play like that.

I think some people clearly don't appreciate a simple song for what it is, and i guess because of this your taste in music is probably quite narrow. I bet said person is still listening to the same track you were when you started talking sh#t on this thread.

This thread is such a joke. Some people are so ignorant when it comes to music.

Anyone who thinks the Beatles are not overly talented and don't deserve the props they get are deaf, dumb and blind! Like it or not, the Beatles are icons and will be remembered and loved 500 years from now (or more). I also believe their music will still be played and enjoyed hundreds of years from now. Not many musicians today will have that honour.

I also believe that some people can't stand the fact that four white boys from Liverpool get the attention, love, recognition and loyality that the Beatles have received and are still receiving today. I think it's sour grapes for some.

EmancipationLover said:

1. Do you really think that the ability to play someone else's music is that respectable? I don't. A computer can do that, and a monkey can be trained. Intricate patterns doesn't = brilliance. Throw a Frisbee and hit a hundred trained musical robot people that will never be creative musicians.

2. I never worked with Mozart. lol. And he was a creative type in his time composing originals. Even if his works don't resonate in today's culture/emotional patterns. That's right.

3. Can't really speculate on this one, but I have a neuroscientist friend that I could ask!

4. I mean stuff that will never EVER be considered interesting.
[Edited 6/27/06 11:50am]

thepope2the9s said:

I agree.

JohnnyB said:

hmmm.

littlemissG said:

hopefully off in India somewhere taking some more powerful drugs than he took to come up with Ten Sumnor's Tales. Cause that was a beautiful album.

But, really, I don't know...

ufoclub said:

1. Yes, I do, and, sorry man, but the fact that you believe a computer or robot could achieve the same result in that as a human shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just compare a Bach fugue played by Kissin (shit) with one played by Gould or Koroliov (brilliant). Compare the Bach Chaconne played by Hilary Hahn or Baiba Skride (shit) with the Nathan Milstein recording (brilliant). A computer could do that? Sorry, but you're so wrong with that.

2. Mozart's works don't resonate in today's culture? Are you kidding? That's almost more ignorant than saying the Beatles were average, lol!

3. You don't need a neuroscientist for that - just look at some examples. Prince - self-taught but very creative. Bach, Mozart - classically educated but very creative. Should be easy to find some non-creative folks from both groups...

4. Again, slippery territory. I could give you several examples now of stuff that was considered NEVER to have an impact on anyone, and people were so 100 % wrong that it isn't even funny. The Bach passions? Mahler's symphonies?

Look, I don't want to jack this thread or something, it's just that I read that kind of stuff about music and musicians ("education blocks creativity") on here repeatedly, and it's just wrong on so many levels. I assume that you wanted to make pop music with these classically trained people? Sorry, but that's not what you learn to do in a classical education, just as you could tell Prince to write a fugue in the Bach style and he couldn't do it. You also don't say that Lance Armstrong is bad at sports because you can find people who run the 100 m faster than him, if you know what I mean...

Oh, and btw, John Blackwell studied at the well-known Berklee college of music. According to what you said, he must be complete shit...
[Edited 6/28/06 6:43am]

JohnnyB said:

lol
come to think of it you're right....

how about

"doing it, doing it, doing it, doing it" from the song well...."It"

I think that Prince would have probably preferred having dinner with John Lennon or George Harrison.

Id love to see Paul & Prince do something.

EmancipationLover said:

1. There is no way you can convince me that intricate musician ship is nothing more than acrobatic spectacle. A major problem with some Prince music is meandering into masterburtory flourishes and phrases that actually take the general listener out of the original emotional flavor. Of course he is well aware of the inverse relationship between gratuitous musicianship and emotionally engaging sound. This is proven in his coaching of his expert musicians ("don't let me here you playing chords, only single notes")

2. Truly do you believe if you walked through your neighborhood and knocked on doors playing Mozart that Mozart would resonate and create an emotional response as art communicating emotion over some more modern music which has evolved very far beyond the sole component of note arrangements?

3. I have a feeling I could teach someone how to be creative by starting at the very basic level of getting your impulses unhibited by logic based doubt. That's just the starting point.

4. No impact meaning no one absorbs it. No one remembers it. No one buys it. No one emulates it. Certainly past composers (often not the ones you would want, like Wagner) can be heard through sounds and trends today, but I'm talking about the thousands of others that just never came up with something original.

I worked with classically trained keyboardists, drummers, guitarists, and bassists and most (not all) wouldn't come up with anything remotely interesting on their own. They needed a lot of direction and editing.

I'm really curious about your work. I suspect you are an educated musician. I have no background in music, no classes, no training, can't read or write notation, not even any mastery of an instrument, but I do work professionally creating soundtracks and songs at times. I started with beats and have slowly worked up to other sounds: http://www.myspace.com/74305123
[Edited 6/28/06 9:41am]

I find this thread has exposed just how many orgers are afflicted by ignorance and it is quite a breathtaking thing to behold. I am almost embarrased to share this forum with such a sorry bunch of igorantus ignorami, but hey I have to suffer for my art too

the Beatles have never been surpassed in terms of cultural significance alone and I doubt they ever will, they were so creative and crafted the most memorable pop music with seemingly insolent ease. Just like Elvis, they broke new ground and were collectively inspired and competent musicians in their own right

As for genius and talent, well it looks like it cannot be trasmitted through the genes... I have sat at the same table as Stella McCartney and she's a loud common little tart and an ignorant cow

Handel said:

was she really that annoying?

ufoclub said:

I STILL say that Prince would have preferred hanging-out with John or George rather than Paul. I just think that John and George "fit" Prince better than Paul. I've always found Paul to be sort of ...MUSICALLY bland in a way where John and George were much grittier--even funkier.

Off-topic, but I think Prince and FLEA should work together!! lol

ufoclub said:

1. I hope I can convince you - there is a lot to listen to out there, and the differences (if you want to listen to it) are striking sometimes. I'm not talking about technical abilities, but what people make out of stuff musically. You can have the same piece played by 10 different people, they all being able to play it technically, they all knowing the notes, but only 1 recording or performance moves you - it can really be unbelievable.

2. I'm not talking about how often you hear this music on TV or how many people out of 100 can sing along to it. I'm talking about the influence it had and has on music composed afterwards. Without Mozart, no Beatles. Music doesn't just rain from heaven - it develops. If you listen to today's pop music, you'll often hear a chord combination like C major - a minor - F major - G major. Standard. Mozart used it frequently... If you listen to today's movie scores, you hear a strong influence of classical music from the romantic period. And what's that based on (in the end)? Mozart. It's a little bit like all people in Europe being relatives of Julius Caesar, you know...

3. You can surely teach people how to improvise and jam (to a certain degree), but if a character is creative or not has to do a lot with personality. I'm not a very creative person - one of the reasons why I decided not to make music my profession...

4. The ratio of remembered music (or art in general) to unremembered music or art will always be large towards the latter. For every genius, you have thousands of mediocre people. But that doesn't necessarily have to do with education. For every self-taught Prince, there are thousands of self-taught garage bands or bar pianists no one gives a flying fuck about. The competition in art is very tough.

If you say that your classically trained colleagues needed a lot of direction, I completely believe you! That's because it is a different music culture. Improvisation and spontaneity don't play a major role in the classical music culture - at least not these days (it used to be different, Bach could improvise complete fugues). That doesn't make them bad musicians - it only means they can't jam that well. To come back to my example: you can play Golf with Lance Armstrong and find out that you play much, much better than him. That doesn't mean he's generally bad at sports. Go cycling with him, and he'll shred you.

Btw, I'm not a professional musician, but classically trained on three instruments. I can improvise a little bit (simple stuff, a waltz or an air, maybe even some poppy stuff, but not very good), but throw me in a Jazz jam session and I'm lost.

Have we jacked this thread now? It went into a strange direction anyway...

EmancipationLover said:

please recommend some exact cd's of what you consider to be truly important music, I'll check it out, and be inluenced.

I remember Paul commented around the Lovesexy era that they went to see Prince (who was one of he & Linda's favorite) and he used too many tapes in concert.

Actually, Prince & Paul might just compliment each other pretty well. If Prince is missing anything nowadays it's melody & hooks, and if Paul is missing anything, it's a funky edge.

:err:Uhhh I do believe while PRN was around 4yrs. old, Paul was taking the GLOBE by storm.I also know that while P may have been 12yrs.old Paul started (at least took the credit for it, because with the beatles ,He couldn't)Producing,arranging,composing,performing,Engineering all his material on his first solo Lp.Which he had done with the B's but had to share the credits w/ John. Todd Rundgren did the same in73-on.
Let us not forget the MONSTER of ALL,F. ZAPPA.....Who is still sooo far ahed of ppl. it's scary. Some of what he did in 67 is still over the heads of most musicians-fans-critics!!!

Thank you D>>>>>^^^^^
[Edited 6/28/06 14:17pm]
[Edited 6/30/06 17:37pm]

ufoclub said:

Tough one, there's so much out there, but I try (subjective selection, other people will probably tell you something different). If it should be limited to 10 recordings overall, I'd recommend:

For a quick browse through the evolution of music:

1. Bach, St. John and/or St. Matthew Passion - I personally like the recordings with H. Rilling as conductor, but some people don't. Also, N. Harnoncourt is not that bad for Bach.
2. Mozart, Late Symphonies (Nos. 39,40,41) - If you can get a recording with F. Fricsay as conductor, you're blessed imo, but you can also go for a recording with Karl Boehm, his style is not up to date anymore, but the recordings are good imo and usually cheap these days.
3. Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 (with the Choral) - I personally like the recording by David Zinman with the Tonhalle Orchestra a lot. Interesting work, especially as you can see how the genre of Symphony evolved within 35 years from Mozart. And the Choral definitely has some pop quality to it imo.
4. Schubert, Winterreise - Try to get either the Fischer-Dieskau or the Bostridge or the Quasthoff recording. This is where the genre of song really evolved (Schubert was a master in it). Very dark, might take some time.
5. Wagner, Tristan und Isolde - I have the D. Barenboim recording, but my girlfriend recently bought a cheap copy of the Karajan recording from 1952 and likes it a lot. Hard stuff, not easy to get into. The harmonics in this work are outstanding, Wagner was at least 50 years ahead of his time. If you don't want to buy the complete opera (4 CDs I think), a recording of the Prelude ("Vorspiel") and "Liebestod" (found on many compilation CDs) also can do it for you, and it should help to make a start (and it's much cheaper). Many say that contemporary art music was born in this composition.
6. Mahler, Symphony No. 2 - I have the C. Abbado recording, but Simon Rattle is also very good for Mahler. An incredibly dramatic work, turn your speakers up! Mahler is on the edge from the 19th to the 20th century, and a lot of stuff which is part of film music today can be heard in his compositions.
7. Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring - I think I have a recording with Pierre Monteux which was very cheap and good. This work is from 1913 or so and caused a riot in a posh concert hall in Paris! Dissonant harmonies, rhythm patterns like blades - lots of 20th century music has its origin in this groundbreaking composition (it's actually a ballet!!!).

For some fascinating interpretation of music (outstanding recordings):

8. Tchaikovsky, Piano Concerto No. 1, Toscanini, V. Horowitz (from 1940 or so) - Bad sound quality, but Horowitz shreds the piano on this one. Great!
9. Bach, Goldberg Variations, Glenn Gould - He has recorded that work twice, 1955 (?) and 1981, I recommend the first recording, incredible virtuosity on it, the second one is interesting as it is completely different, though by the same person.
10. Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, Simon Rattle - Rattle makes Beethoven sound like an early form of Heavy Metal, great ride!

That's just some stuff I like. If you only want a few things to start with, I'd recommend the Nos. 2,3,6,7 from the list. Some is not easy to get into, but it's very rewarding if you try.

Also, when we talk about what led to the music we have today, we shouldn't leave out Jazz which had a huge influence on pop music. But I'm not that good in Jazz, I'm sure there are others on the org who know a lot more.

Oh, and I'll definitely check out your myspace page tomorrow (sorry, I'm a little busy today)!

Isel said:

Paul may be blander, and I think Prince respects John's idealism & promotion of peace, but I think Prince would respect Paul's all around musicianship when it came to studio time.

ufoclub said:

Handel said:

Just curious what NEW ground did Elvis break?

EmancipationLover said:[quote]

For a quick browse through the evolution of music:

1. Bach, St. John and/or St. Matthew Passion - I personally like the recordings with H. Rilling as conductor, but some people don't. Also, N. Harnoncourt is not that bad for Bach.
2. Mozart, Late Symphonies (Nos. 39,40,41) - If you can get a recording with F. Fricsay as conductor, you're blessed imo, but you can also go for a recording with Karl Boehm, his style is not up to date anymore, but the recordings are good imo and usually cheap these days.
3. Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 (with the Choral) - I personally like the recording by David Zinman with the Tonhalle Orchestra a lot. Interesting work, especially as you can see how the genre of Symphony evolved within 35 years from Mozart. And the Choral definitely has some pop quality to it imo.
4. Schubert, Winterreise - Try to get either the Fischer-Dieskau or the Bostridge or the Quasthoff recording. This is where the genre of song really evolved (Schubert was a master in it). Very dark, might take some time.
5. Wagner, Tristan und Isolde - I have the D. Barenboim recording, but my girlfriend recently bought a cheap copy of the Karajan recording from 1952 and likes it a lot. Hard stuff, not easy to get into. The harmonics in this work are outstanding, Wagner was at least 50 years ahead of his time. If you don't want to buy the complete opera (4 CDs I think), a recording of the Prelude ("Vorspiel") and "Liebestod" (found on many compilation CDs) also can do it for you, and it should help to make a start (and it's much cheaper). Many say that contemporary art music was born in this composition.
6. Mahler, Symphony No. 2 - I have the C. Abbado recording, but Simon Rattle is also very good for Mahler. An incredibly dramatic work, turn your speakers up! Mahler is on the edge from the 19th to the 20th century, and a lot of stuff which is part of film music today can be heard in his compositions.
7. Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring - I think I have a recording with Pierre Monteux which was very cheap and good. This work is from 1913 or so and caused a riot in a posh concert hall in Paris! Dissonant harmonies, rhythm patterns like blades - lots of 20th century music has its origin in this groundbreaking composition (it's actually a ballet!!!).

For some fascinating interpretation of music (outstanding recordings):

8. Tchaikovsky, Piano Concerto No. 1, Toscanini, V. Horowitz (from 1940 or so) - Bad sound quality, but Horowitz shreds the piano on this one. Great!
9. Bach, Goldberg Variations, Glenn Gould - He has recorded that work twice, 1955 (?) and 1981, I recommend the first recording, incredible virtuosity on it, the second one is interesting as it is completely different, though by the same person.
10. Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, Simon Rattle - Rattle makes Beethoven sound like an early form of Heavy Metal, great ride!

quote]


Did ANY of these guys play any FUNK? If not.....

Graycap23 said:

Elvis was kind of like the messenger--he didn't exactly write the message, but he delivered it to millions of people.

NDRU said:

That's probably true. I also agree with your earlier about about Prince and Paul maybe complementing each other. John, and Prince (and George to an extent) may have been too similar. For Paul to work with Prince, it would be a little like him working with John, ya know? That's what made Lennon and McCartney's partnership so great--the fact that they complemented each other so well.
Edited for spelling/word choice... OOPs
[Edited 6/28/06 15:09pm]

Isel said:

Yeah, Paul's pure musical nature was perfect for John's creativity & soul.

Prince and Paul would complement each other, too, in a slightly different way.

EmancipationLover said:

see now I definitely consider Wagner's piece "Parsival" to be quite emotional.

NDRU said:

Exactly. And like John Lennon said: "before Elvis there was nothing".

Handel said:

Of course, that's an exaggeration, but it's also an exaggeration to say that Elvis brought nothing to music.

prndc33 said: