Classical vs. Metal

[loam]

Well, I don't know much about music theory or the construction of classical. Hence, I feel I wouldn't contribute much to the discussions in the classical forum. I do really appreciate the subforum though; as there's a good amount of interesting discussion which takes place. I lurk to learn.

I still do enjoy the classical I have, but its a genre I've really only started listening to heavily within the past 2-3 years.

I understand, but would that you didn't fear discussing classical music because you are new to it; also, when will you no longer be "new", at 5 years?! Knowledge of theory is not in the least necessary in order to share one's thoughts about the music, I can assure you of that.

Metal listeners coming to classical tend to overlook a huge chunk of the listening experience: the variety of interpretations. The nature of metal tends to make structure the differentiator between quality and crap. In classical, much weeding out has been done by the formal training requirements to compose, and by historical distance. Furthermore, classical structure is at once simpler and more complex (fixed forms vs. treatment of melody, harmony, texture, etc.) and therefore cannot be appreciated in the exact same way as in metal without overlooking important elements.

In metal, interpretation is fixed by the creator. It's like movies, and remakes/covers usually miss what made the original great. But classical is like theater. There is no fixed, official version. Each time it is played, it relies on the skill and sensibility of the interpreter. And while it can be a matter of taste, there are also objectively better and worse interpretations.

In progressing from metal to classical, I recommend obtaining more than a single version of a favourite work. This trains the ear in critical listening, points to future listening possibilities by a good soloist or ensemble, and enables a newcomer to participate in meaningful non-technical discussions.

I think DeathDealer brings up an interesting point here. As someone fairly new to classical music, I was wondering if anyone else had any insight into its qualities compared/contrasted with those of metal and/or advice for the metal listener just beginning to explore its depths.

[N]

Taking the theory and musicianship classes at the local University or Junior College is a good place to start.

I've always felt Classical to be musician's music (perhaps a kiss of death in this age) and so a working, firm knowledge of theory and its application are indispensable in listening to Classical. Style from a Historical point of view, is a great asset, as well—are they playing Baroque like Baroque? Are they avoiding playing Mozart’s fortes, like Beethoven or Wagner’s?

It has also has the advantage of edification, for me at least--I cannot count the number of times I’ve been overtaken by a sense of awe, inspired and invigorated by the pure genius of some composers; Mozart's use of the Neapolitan in the second movement of his 23rd Piano concerto, as well as the subtle hints at "mi"; Beethoven’s use of cross relation of f-natural and f-# with a tonicization in the 18th measure of his violin sonata no. 7; Schubert’s text painting in Der Erlkönig. These are all subtleties I find fascinating because they all appear to hint, or imply an experience the composer is attempting to transmit.

Hope that helps, it’s some of what I’ve learned thus far.

[Levy_Spearmen]

Listening to classical isn't hard at all. Instead of wasting cash going back to highschool, just smoke some cannabis or don't and listen to the music. What do you think when listening to it? What do you think the composer was thinking? Classical isn't some complex form of art that an intelligent person can't understand it without knowing the musical jargon.

[N]

How can one reach the precipice of what a composer has to say without knowing his language?

To my mind you will gain the knowledge in two ways:

1) observation/listening. Our brains will recognize the patterns aurally, and begin to map them. It’s slower, but it works, also.

2) you learn the “jargon” and supplement with #1(which, you should do anyway). this is the quickest route because you can provide an organizational paradigm to your listening. 


That being said, I think you’re basically correct: with enough time most brains can understand classical, but that’s not always functional; there are bills to pay, families to love, adventures to have and shit to get done.   

[Sammaellofi]

I agree with the first post, but think it should be added that metal has these difference because it is trying to claim something, in it's striving toward classical, that would come to composers through discipline and tradition.  They are trying to make up for a lot of lost layers and a lot of trial and error is what is left to pick up the slack.  In that, I think the best metal should be considered even more admirable in that it creates it's greatness without the help of the channels that composers were expected to go through.  Early Immortal comes to mind.  That's not Mozart writing that stuff.  It's just some kids who liked metal, but look what they accomplished.

[Dinaric Leather]

I think this is kind of an apples and oranges question. Sometimes I feel that Metal is more of a phenomena than a genre. The word classical means close to nothing, being an absolutely massive umbrella term for many disparate types of music. Unless you are speaking specifically of the Classical era of music, but even that is quite a large umbrella. These categories are more like descriptions than anything else.

[Conservationist]

I think this is kind of an apples and oranges question. Sometimes I feel that Metal is more of a phenomena than a genre.

Yeah, or that metal is what classical would be if you demanded five minute songs with some semblance of verse/chorus, produced only on guitar/bass with constant fucking drums, and that there must be some form of semi-monotone vocal as is common in popular music.

[omen_of_deth]

i dont know musical structure either,but i can still feel the "hate" in some classical or the "depression" , so far the only classical music i liked were beethovens and only the piano pieces , appassionata is one of my favorite , and i think its better not to understand exactly what the composer is trying to say this way you give chance to a lot of imagination...

[David_Bale]

Metal.

[E]

just smoke some cannabis or don't and listen to the music.

This. Classical to some has this mystic aura of esoterism, extreme complexity, etc.; so cultivated by (proto-)hipsters, for obvious reasons, and by legit enthousiasts to discourage idiots from entering their domain.
Ignore that and get rewarded.

Yeah, or that metal is what classical would be if you demanded five minute songs with some semblance of verse/chorus, produced only on guitar/bass with constant fucking drums, and that there must be some form of semi-monotone vocal as is common in popular music.

...to conveniently forget the rather limited spectrum of substance conveyed in metal. While the depths may not be deeper, the heights sure are higher in classical. So relatively, the depths may be deeper after all (right?).
But this discussion is probably as old as this forum.

[iddqd]

When you listen to Classical first with intelligence,  the right work and performance will penetrate deeply into your subconscious and excite potentially deeply buried emotions. Are there any other forms of music that can have this effect that is as rich, complex, both subtle and straight-forward, that can excite these feelings in man? Now there are many people who can hear a great work of classical music and not be affected by it, but I suspect that these listeners do not first listen with intelligence and are then not available to the experience. Listen like Apollo, feel like Dionysus.

I suggest starting with Beethoven's 9th as conducted by Karajan circa 1977.

http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphony-No-9-Choral/dp/B000001G6W/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1303191869&sr=8-16

Used is going for super cheap!