Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

"Heavy Classical"

"Heavy Classical"
November 15, 2006, 09:07:15 PM
This term was used on several of the websites linked here by people uploading or researching classical. It means modern Romantic/classical music, usually 1850-1930, with a "heavy" nature such as stormy large themes and epic scope.

It's the perfect music for metalheads to listen to while tuning their minds for combat and music-making.

1. Robert Schumann
2. Richard Wagner 2
3. Gustav Holst
4. Johannes Brahms 2
5. Anton Bruckner
6. Ludwig van Beethoven 2
7. Nicolo Paganini

It makes metal more meaningful to listen to this music. It's similar in many ways. It's of a longer form. It inspires greater creativity and aiming higher than three-chord "war metal." And it's just plain beautiful... and heavy.

The only thing that really takes getting used to is having a different ear to hear 68+ instruments at once and pick up the sonic range. Listen to it at top volume with surround sound if you can.

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 15, 2006, 09:52:55 PM
"Mars - Bringer Of War" is the best piece of music ever made.

The most brooding, powerful music ever made, and probably the ultimate in Heavy Classical.

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 16, 2006, 12:49:23 AM
i believe you forgot Edvard Grieg from that list, not to mention many of Bach's harpsichord concertos (mostly those in a minor key) and his incredible organ works

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 16, 2006, 11:45:18 AM
I'm a huge fan of J.S. Bach but I think he doesn't fit to the description provided here, simply because he is a composer of an older period (baroque). Personally I would add to the composers that were mentioned, the German composer Richard Strauss (no connection to the Austrian Johann Strauss and his silly waltzes). He mainly composed tone poems, among which the most well known is "Also sprach Zarathustra" ("Thus spoke Zarathustra") based on the book of the same name by Friedrich Nietzsche.

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 16, 2006, 04:00:42 PM
Here is a thought.  All these composers listed are miles above any metal band.  I think metal is becoming a stepping stone.

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 17, 2006, 12:19:14 AM
Quote
I'm a huge fan of J.S. Bach but I think he doesn't fit to the description provided here, simply because he is a composer of an older period (baroque). Personally I would add to the composers that were mentioned, the German composer Richard Strauss (no connection to the Austrian Johann Strauss and his silly waltzes). He mainly composed tone poems, among which the most well known is "Also sprach Zarathustra" ("Thus spoke Zarathustra") based on the book of the same name by Friedrich Nietzsche.



yes Bach was a very old fashioned composer but if you listen to the first piece in the saint john passion  
you cant argue that it isn't moving and powerful, but i do agree romantic period composers are much more suited to "heavy classical"

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 18, 2006, 12:49:24 AM
Quote
I think metal is becoming a stepping stone.


For me, it's a continuity. 90% of what I listen to is classical/Romantic music, and the remaining 10% is about half metal.

I don't listen to any rock music. I want to hear artistically precise music with some philosophical ambition, and music of enduring aesthetic value, so that means some of the best metal and keyboard bands stick around. But after you get used to hearing a symphony and not a distorted guitar, is Brahms Sym. 2 as heavy as anything Deicide ever did? Hell yeah.

Check it out and be ready to do a couple listens so your "ear" can figure out how the symphonic sound works.

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 18, 2006, 03:23:02 AM
Quote
But after you get used to hearing a symphony and not a distorted guitar, is Brahms Sym. 2 as heavy as anything Deicide ever did? Hell yeah.



That's kind of what I mean.  You get into this kind of metal because you think that it's all the good things about "rock" music, without all the moron parts and then you get into classical through metal.  Finally, you see the classical music is much better than metal, even though the metal is very good, and you only just then realize what "heavy" means.  

No death metal band can compare to the heaviness of the wide range of intruments in some of the better pieces.  The constant melodies flowing over eachother and the ability to shift emotions at will shows you how limited even Black Metal can be as far as emotions go, in relation to "heaviness"

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 18, 2006, 08:58:47 PM
For me it's good to have something to grow towards. I'll always like death metal and black metal, and some heavy metal, and some rock, but when I do not have much time and want a real headtrip I like to listen to classical radio. Some of it is quite poncy but the heavy stuff is \m/ without a guitar in sight (Varg can relax about his fear of Africa).

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 20, 2006, 01:39:44 AM
i myself am an aspiring classical composer but will never lose sight of the ideals that metal upholds, although i will trade in my guitar and drum-kit for violin and cello i hope my music will still keep the same intensity that metal has.

But in saying this i do find musically metal a foot-note, even the most chaotic metal doesn't rival the chaotic nature of some 20'th century works. Bands like enslaved are interesting but probably wont affect my work as much as Sibelius will. I think metal will either die out. Fade into mediocrity or will become almost like classical bar the instrumentation

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 20, 2006, 02:07:01 AM
I am not ashamed to admit that a thread like this gives ample opportunity for a classical beginner to start exploring the 'genre' in more depth. Thanks, ChristianHolocaust.

ICONOCLAST_IS_GOD

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 20, 2006, 02:22:51 AM
The Schumann samples I listened to didn't seem heavy at all.  I liked Gustav Hoslt though.

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 20, 2006, 05:05:35 PM
It doesn't have to be epic in length or use a full orchestra to be "heavy" - Chopin's 24 preludes being a case in point.

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 21, 2006, 08:42:14 AM
Quote
It doesn't have to be epic in length or use a full orchestra to be "heavy"


Totally agree. The opposite applies too. A big orchestra and/or lengthy compositions are not enough to create something wonderful. (Negative) example (in my opinion): Gustav Mahler.

Re: "Heavy Classical"
November 21, 2006, 04:09:08 PM
Quote
You get into this kind of metal because you think that it's all the good things about "rock" music, without all the moron parts and then you get into classical through metal.  Finally, you see the classical music is much better than metal, even though the metal is very good, and you only just then realize what "heavy" means.  


To me, they're complementary. Take Kraftwerk, Burzum, Deicide and Brahms, Bruckner, Schubert: they each have a place. I cannot subtract any from my life because they are all relevant. Burzum I listen to when I have time to focus and appreciate, much like Bruckner and Brahms. Schubert and Deicide are more portable, as is Kraftwerk, but I find myself returning to them in solitary moods as well. They are all visions of the same continuous idea.

I believe metalheads will learn to integrate classical and some keyboard bands when they see this continuity. The furthest-ahead of them already do. It is a sensible way to expand one's mind and find more to enjoy, and shows transcendence of category ("metal","classical","ambient") in favor of what we might call artistic genre, or vein of thought, such as "Romantic music" or "transcendentalist music" or even simply the philosophies themselves, "art in an idealist, transcendentalist, holistic realist sense" ;)