They surely wished.

[DELETED]

Funny, I was thinking similar thoughts about them, right down to Mozart having a taste for special FX, but Beethoven probably being more serious and down-to-earth whatever genre of music he would have taken to were he living in modern times.

My son, 4, is into Beethoven, especially Beethoven's 9th. He just discovered it somewhere and latched onto it. He kind of pushed it on his parents. He'll listen to over and over again all day if we don't put an end to it. I've tried to introduce him to Deep Purple but no go.

Beethoven and Mozart (their are others) do intricate multi-instrument compositions (played by skilled humans using fingers and breath) Orchestral pieces. This represents the finest, expressive, most complex, difficult, tuneful, melodic music that mankind has ever produced bar none. Trying to compare them to little 4 piece bands with verse, chorus melodys is laughable.

Not in the same universe.

Not everyone of course listens to it all the time but if you really take the time to discover it, learn about it and appreciate what it really is you would just go Wow!

Probably the last composer to do anything comparable was probably Holst with the Planets. Since then, not much.

I will add in Igor Stravinski who was also 20th century

[DELETED]

It's a whole different ball game than doing intricate orchestral music! I wonder how Zappa would have done if he was a classical composer? I will have to give Zappa a listen though having not really been exposed to much of his work!

I said to my friends a long time ago, much as I like and still do listen to popular music and progressive rock and electronic instrumental most of the time, I do this with the full knowledge and appreciation that the likes of Beethoven and Mozart made the finest music mankind has ever produced.

Many arguments came about because of this. :-)

What I would like to see in the present day is some quality musical composition using the incredible array of new sounds that can be achieved with the synthesizer.

This will never be as much an achievement as using skilled humans playing however but the textures, sounds and musical landscapes it could evoke is mind boggling.

I think some of those classical guys would get into jazz also. I bet Mozart would have loved to have jambed with Coltrane, Miles, Munk, Mingus and Bird.

When Duke Ellington toured in Europre for the first time in 1933 British composer, conductor and music critic Constant Lambert proclaimed that Ellington was "skillful as compared with other jazz composers," but that his music could stand alongside that of the European masters: "I know of nothing in Ravel so dexterous [...] nothing in Stravinsky more dynamic." Percy Grainger listed Duke among the three greatest composers in the history of music along with Bach and Delius.

Personally I think Miles Davis's music, influence and legacy will last for centuries.

maybe this can please everrybody - but i doubt it very much

dave edmunds sabre dance - YouTube

Yanni was my first exposure to meditative and atmospheric music. I should really listen to more of him to give me some fresh ideas for my own stuff in that genre.

The performance by Yanni and his orchestra in the Forbidden City in Beijing, China was spectacular, so good they probably improved China/West relations with it.

I wish I could give this response two thanks.

I always liked ELOs version of this. At the time it was pretty radical stuff.

Roll Over Beethoven (FULL SONG) - YouTube

That had me in fits of laughter.

Brilliant!

COB (Alexi Laiho) cover Vivaldi's Four Seasons Summer Theme - YouTube[/QUOTE]

that is what i call music

Well, hate to shatter so many dreams with this post but Bach's Minuet In G was actually written by Christian Petzold. Long story short, Bach's wife had a book with a collection of pieces by other composers. Some were properly marked with the composer who owned the piece. Others were not. This particular piece, whether attributed or not, is now believed to be written by Petzoid. Whether or not this is 100% for certain is irrelevant to answering the question but should be pointed out. A lot of music from that era which was attributed to one composer actually turned out to be written by somebody else.

A lot of music of the era was in fact written as exercises. Chopin's etudes (literally means exercise) were probably the most famous of them all. Whether or not Bach or Petzoid would have developed these further had they been around today is moot. Back then, you had pieces of all lengths and purposes, including those simply meant to be used as an exercise.

It's kind of like asking, had Ford the knowledge that we have today, would they have made the Edsel in 1958? Moot point. They did and thank God it's over with. Not that there is anything wrong with piano exercises. Some are quite interesting to listen to, as is Petzoid's, Bach's, whoever.

I guess we'll just never know what could have been.

Imagine had Mozart lived past 35 years of age.

Steven,

As far as the notion they'd use synthesizers, I offer in support Isao Tomita's album, "Firebird." Starting (side A) with Stravinsky's "Firebird Suite," and moving on side B to Debussy's "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Fawn," (one of my all-time favorite pieces).

That was done on a Moog synthesizer in the mid 70s. I can't imagine how much further they'd have moved the line by now.

One of my most cherished pieces of vinyl.

Moving to an omnibus reply...

I think what gets missed by some of the genre snobs is the intention of the piece. Zappa was mentioned a few times for his orchestral integrity, and with good reason. I'd also add Brian Setzer and Elton John (esp. w/ Bernie Taupin) to that category.Ever listened to Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble? Miles Davis? The original Carter Family? The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band?

How about The Band? (I recommend the soundtrack from "The Last Waltz.")

John Philip Souza? The Grateful Dead?

The purpose of music, from the perspective of the creator, is to evoke an emotional response in the listener. To the extent that this response is of the type the composer and performer intended, it is a success. The strength of the response measures the degree of success.

I have friends who are classical music aficionados who can't understand Robbie Robertson, Rat Dog, the Ramones, or (for that matter) Ron Perlman's poetry readings from "Of Love and Hope."

How are they 'superior?'

They're just different.

Violins? Call it a fiddle and bring out Vassar Clements or Doug "the Ragin' Cajun" Kershaw. Or hell, Charlie Daniels.

(BTW, I prefer the Chris Ledoux version of "Life is a Highway." Just sayin'.)Stevie Ray's "Tax Man." Billy Joel's "Shades of Grey." Delbert McClinton's "Ain't Never Been Rocked Enough." Michael Jackson's "Thriller." Brian Setzer's "The Knife Feels Like Justice." Miles Davis' "So What?"

How did chamber music spawn "Champagne Charlie?"

Demonstrate your assertion. Show your work.

Or, hell. Let's make it easy. Carl Perkins' "Blue Suede Shoes."

"Moonlight in Vermont?" "Moon Over Bourbon Street?"

Extrapolate Billie Holiday from Beethoven, or Sting from Stravinsky. Go ahead. I dare you. Those two should be easy, given your stated premise.

You might as well try to derive Mussorgsky from Muscle Shoals.Because the academicians who write the text books are enamored of the past, and they decide who is and is not remembered as "great."

These are the same people who think the Colosseum is a greater achievement than the power plant built in Niagara Falls by Robert Moses. But which fed more people and changed more lives?

Find wisdom where you can. Enjoy what speaks to you. Let history tell whatever lies it chooses.


Paul

That's okay Paul. I don't even know who Rat Dog is. Relatively speaking, the amount of music I've been exposed to in my life is a pin prick next to the amount of music that has been given to us throughout time.

There is no way any human being could possibly listen to it all.

Makes me wonder what greatness I've missed.

The most bizarre situations can reveal the true weaknesses of men.

Can't argue with that. People don't change, at least not drastically. We all change as we age to some degree. Our priorities change from childhood to adulthood but once we get to a certain age, our values and core beliefs don't change much.

Steven,Whoah.... Do you really want to stake out that position? Seriously?

Leaving aside the whole "He's got as much right to his opinion as you or I or anyone else" thing, that's a truly dangerous place to go.

What you've described in your last few posts translates to: "If someone believes differently than me, and refuses to either change their position or shut up, I will pursue it until one of those things happens. No matter the cost to me in anger, frustration, and obsession."

That's major cardiac karma.


Paul

Dennis,Huge point.

The folks who don't want it will experience it as a burden. If you put them in that position, they will resent it, since you're taking away their ability to just have a normal conversation. You make every discussion a walk through a minefield.

Who the hell wants THAT?


Paul

I'd like to return to the original question, if I may.

Forgetting about talent (which is subjective anyway) aren't we really comparing apples to oranges? Hear me out just for a moment.

Back in the days of Mozart and Beethoven, there was very little music beforehand (relatively speaking, at least compared to how much has come before us today) and also very little technology in order to create that music.

On the one hand, lack of technology does require them to do more with less. I know there is now way I could have written my symphony and piano concerto back in the old days using just pen and paper. I wouldn't have had the patience. But today, with music composition software, it makes things a lot easier and quicker. Sure, you still have to come up with the notes, but once you do, getting them down is a breeze. So on that level, I have a great deal of admiration for the old timers.

On the other hand, having so little music done before them, it gives them more room for experimentation. It was less likely that they were going to come up with something that had already been done.

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, all my contacts in the music industry have all essentially told me the same thing. My lyrics aren't different enough. They're saying the same thing that have already been said. I've been told I need to do that but do it in a different way. That becomes harder and harder to do the more music that gets written.

Listen to some of the early pop tunes. The lyrics were very simple as were the rhymes. You can't even think about rhyming above with love anymore or you'd be laughed out of the business. And Broadway tunesmiths have it even tougher. Broadway is not allowed the use of false rhymes, like we have in rock and pop music. Rhymes like "up" and "enough". You can't do that on Broadway. So, with all the Broadway tunes that have been written so far, it becomes more and more difficult to come up with something lyrically unique and interesting.

In that regard, I can't even begin to tell you how much respect I have for today's composers because almost anything they do is going to be compared to something that came before it unless it is so radically different in its own right.

Think about it. How many times do you hear a song and say to yourself, "That reminds me of..." Okay, how many times do you hear a song and say "I've never heard anything like that in my life." Not many, at least not for me. Most music, even classical music, is pretty similar in many aspects if for no other reason than it has to be identifiable by the masses or most people won't get it. That's why we HAVE forms like the sonata and the symphony and whatever.

We have had so much experimental music throughout the ages, but how much of it ever caught on? I can't psychologically explain why certain sounds are more "pleasing" to the human ear than others, why C, A Minor, F and G is one of the most common chord progressions in popular music or why Tangerine Dream only developed a cult following while The Beatles sold millions of records. Obviously, and by a wide margin, one was universally liked more than the other. On a technical level, one could argue that Tangerine Dream surpassed the Beatles in musical complexity. But so what? How will history look at these two groups? They're not even in the same league success wise.

Imagine had Tangerine Dream got together in the 1700s and composed the same kind of music. We wouldn't be talking about Stravinsky's "Rite Of Spring" as being so "radical" the way we did when it was first performed. That piece literally caused a riot in Paris in 1913. I seriously doubt that any kind of music created today, no matter how different, could do that. Hell, listen to Cee Lo Green's FU from 2010. That was the number 7 song of the year in 2011. There was a time when something like that couldn't even make the radio.

So yes, today's composers and musicians have more tools at their disposal but they also have more that they have to overcome as far as "familiarity" goes. Stuff that would have been a super big "hit" 30 years ago wouldn't even make the charts today. And not because it's dated but because it's already been done. We are constantly looking for "new".

With only 12 different notes on a standard keyboard (unless you want to start messing with micro tunings) that's not as easy to pull off as it was 300 years ago when everything was new.

Because of that fact, I give today's musicians a lot of credit and I feel they deserve to be recognized for their work every bit as much as the old timers and not penalized just because they happen to be born 300 years later.

Kurt, without seeing the music I can't be 100% sure but it appears to alternate between 4/4 and 7/4 time which is why beat 1 seems to be coming in too early at times, thus throwing your foot tapping off. Plus, the rhythm is choppy as heck.

This piece is just more proof of how talented Jeff Beck is.