New age. Neo-classical. How about Borders Books & Music's new name for "it"?

Lifestyles.

:p

:rolleyes:

Jeanne W

LIFESTYLES???!?!

I don't know whether to collapse in giggles or stunned disbelief.

Being pretty firmly in the "classical" camp, I'm not a well-versed fan of music in the New Age category, but I have looked into it a little lately. I read on someone's website--either Jim Brickman or David Nevue, I forget which--that he sees himself as a religious music composer, but he's put in New Age, which brings up a different picture to some people. He says he doesn't mind it because it brings more people to his music, but he thinks all solo piano is dubbed New Age for lack of a broader category.

I wonder if Ludivico Einaudi is considered New Age in Europe, or is this just an American classification? It seems to me that anyone who tours playing his own music here will not be seen as a serious musician or composer. By serious, I mean that their compositions don't appear on the required or optional lists for any of the festivals for piano students, at least the ones I've seen. On the other hand, some modern composers--Catherine Rollin comes to mind--are featured repeatedly. I think she's great, but I wonder why she's more accepted than some of these others on the list above. Is it because she doesn't tour playing her own music? Does having a fan base somehow cheapen a composer? Or maybe if I were more schooled in music, I would see she was a better composer, plain and simple. I don't know.

For some reason--maybe marketing or just my own prejudices--I don't like the New Age label for these artists. I think it has a negative connotation, like I will be compelled to pull out the crystals and light the incense if I play them. Neo-classical seems a little more neutral to me, but I don't know enough about this music to even know if it all fits in the same category.

I think I'll go read the posts on the "complexity" thread that Jeanne W started and see if I can educate myself on this subject. It's very intriguing.

Nancy

Lifestyles??. Is'nt that a .....well, you know!

what the hell are Philip Glass and other exponents of modern "art music" doing in your list of "easy, relaxing, meditating" new age crap?

"new age crap" ?

Is that another new category???

:p



nameksueijin: Don't know whether to take you seriously or ???

Jeanne W

That is exactly the problem with the "New Age" label (much as I don't mind it). It is NOT just "easy, relaxing, meditating crap." And Philip Glass and others fit under that one very large umbrella as well as many of the more relaxing sub-genres of the type. And on top of that, one man's "crap" is another man's muse.

Einaudi's CDs have "classical" on their label, as do Glass's. Not sure they fit in there, either.

I think {hope) what namekuse is referring to is that dreamy, half stoned type of music that just repeats the same measure of one or two notes or rhythms over and over and over again.

Some may say "enya" can do this, possibly "Yanni" as well.

You know, the type of music that makes you think you are just floating in warm, soft flufy clouds in a dream like state. you have your crystals in your hands and may possibly be in an almost trance like state while enjoying the music.

I guess this could also describe being "stoned"!, I don't know!!

Anyway, I think we all know what I am reffering to but I would definitely NOT put Einaudi, Lanz, Tierson and others in that "dreamy" category.

As far as "easy" to play. Go get a copy of "Christofori's dream" or "Le Onde" and you will learn real quick that this is far from "beginer" music. It's not too advanced, but definitely "intermediate" at least in my opinion.

I wouldn't call Philip Glass "new age". His music is too "cerebral" for that (ducking). I would call it modern classical music.

I come from an electronic side of music, and would consider "Tangerine Dream" (Klaus Schulze) to be new age type of music. Enya also, although with more pop appeal. Even Pink Floyd could be considered to be "new age".

But, it seems to me that most instrumental new age music is considered by the masses to be forgettable elevator music, and in fact that would be the way it would be categorized. Hmmm, lets see - that sounds like dull elevator music, so lets put it in the new age bin.

Elevator music is the kind of music that makes nice background, yes. There are "new age" artisits and then there are "new age artists" - those whose music commands your attention. That, to me, is what the best new age artists music does - it demands your attention. You want to actively LISTEN to it, not just put it on and let it serve as background fluff.

I've read more often than not that the musicians themselves do not exactly embrace being lumped together in the "new age" category. But that's what we tend to do, people like to categorize and label things. There just aren't the proper number or type of labels and bins to put these musicians into.

Jeanne W

You can't have 'classical' if the composer isn't dead!

I prefer "pretty modern piano music" which about sums it up for me.

sid:

"pretty modern piano music"



Don't think the composers would appreciate that too much, though. Somehow that "category" seems denigrating... OH FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHAT ARE WE ALL TALKING ABOUT THIS STUFF FOR. WE'RE DRIVING OURSELVES BATS, WE ARE.

My husband just asked "Are you still on PianoMold?"

I replied: "Yes - and I'm driving myself insane-o mane-o!"

Jeanne W

I just call it music that I love to listen to and attempt to play.......

Labels (like stars) aren't always useful :p

Glad to meet another person with a sense of humor

Tiersen has also been refered to as avant-garde, perhaps that's the best term.

In my mind it's ex-ante classical. I think the music is brilliant, and the critics who think complexity equates with good music have totally missed the point of music...to manage to evoke so much using so little is truly the mark of a master. Mr. SH is right, Einaudi, Tiersen, Lanz, Brickman are all in a class by themselves.

I agree with Jeanne, this music demands your attention. I love classical music, but it really has been done to death, and by much better people that I'll ever be. When I play these new artists, I get the added satisfaction of novelty (I may not be the best but at least I'll be among the first, haha), it's like playing satie or bach when they were still alive. And as rocky says, ultimately, it's about how it makes you feel when you play it, why else bother to learn piano if not for this pleasure.

sid, I think you hit it right there. If people looked at our CD collection, they would probably not have a clue how to classify our listening "style." We have music that crosses every type, every genre, every label- some of it is my husband's choice, some mine, most we both enjoy. Our taste is eclectic, to say the least. And I don't judge the music I choose to listen to (or play) by label or category. It's got to be something I enjoy- period. And if some think it's "elevator music," so be it. Heck, I have a whole set of CDs from one of my favorite musicians that my husband does consider elevator music! I don't care- I like it!! And some of the artists that are talked about in this and the other New Age threads, I don't care for. But that's ok, too. Everyone's taste is different. Labels get in the way, far too often.

That's the problem with modern (as in recent) instrumental music as far as the not very complicated or sophisticated label goes - because there is no vocal or lyrics it's always judged on the instrumentality of the music.

For example, everybody might agree that "Let It Be" by the Beatles is easy to play on piano, but does that mean that that song (and by extension - The Beatles) were no good, or not very sophisticated? The Beatles, as it turns out, were very sophisticated and had the most impact of any music of the last 100 years. They completely changed music not just once (as did Elvis, for example) but about three times - and the impact is still felt by music today.

New Age or whatever we call it - can't be dismissed because of its simplicity or complexity. IT'S JUST MUSIC, isn't it? Do you like it? Yes? That's all that matters. But let's still find a different name for it.

Bottom line is that I'm embarrased to tell random people I meet that I like New Age music. It makes it sound like you like the kind of music that Mr. SH described above. (Wait, there are times that I even like that kind, but not normally.)

Maybe I should have titled this "Piano Artists that play mostly solo piano music that is not jazz, is not classical, and whose CD's often present a challenge when trying to classify into a single genre"

BTW, any other artists like that to add to the list ?

There's a bunch of Japanese composers that fall into this category, Shiro problably knows them better than I...Kitaro and Ryuichi Sakamoto just to name a couple that comes to mind.

Ahh, Vangelis. Don't really have any of his music, but remember a photo of him in an old Melody Maker - he was in the center of a bank of keyboards, stacked four to six high on all sides of him - him being in the "cockpit".

That's what happens when you get OBSESSED with the sound and realize: THIS keyboard has the best SYNTH sound, but this OTHER keyboard has the best HONKY TONK PIANO, and this OTHER keyboard.... you get the idea.



Jeanne W

DeepElm:



Jeanne W

P.S. You also asked in your post if anyone has any new age artists to add to the list. Yes, I do. But one of them is someone new I discovered recently and I left that CD at work. I'll try to post back Monday.

Oh, yes, Vangelis! Have several of his CDs, including one with Jon Anderson (of Yes). Great stuff. And Kitaro- many of his CDs in our collection. We actually saw Kitaro in concert once- great show.

Are we limiting our New Age artists to mostly piano oriented or are groups/other instruments in contention?

Yiruma... whose "River Flows in You" is just exquisite.

If I go back to the first page of the thread to check, I'll lose this reply, so I'll just ask if you included Brian Crain (who was so viciously maligned in the other new age thread) and Stan Lanier?

I was originally looking for a list of piano artists, but if someone is not really a piano artist and you let me know I'll put them in the list and note that it's not piano oriented.

Liz Story and Suzanne Ciani were my pics on a previous thread that took a left turn and landed in the dumpster. On the Vol 1 of the Liz Story it says New Age Series so that must mean she is certified New Age. Suzanne Ciani's piece Velocity of Love is available as a single sheet and is a piece my intermediate students like to play. Liz Story's Wedding Rain and Things with wings are more advanced and are favorites at recital time.

Where does "Celtic Women" fit in? I just saw a special on pbs television featuring the Celtic women singers and while they are not playing piano, they sure sing very nice.

A bit on the "Dreamy" side, but still nice.

OK. Now it's my turn to get critical. (Anyone who's been following the new age threads will know what I mean.)

I can appreciate what the Celtic Women are doing and they play some great music. But it seems a over the top - too flashy and artificial for me. The way they dress, I mean. I can't get used to the idea of hearing that kind of music played by beautiful women strutting their stuff around the stage dressed to the nines in evening gowns!

I've been listening to English, Irish and Scottish folk music for years. To me, that music is about sitting around together in a comfortable setting, regular folks, having a friendly get together. It seems the Celtic Woman have come up with a very financially lucrative concept, and made it all a bit more palatable for the masses, though, so who am I to criticize?

I'm just having a hard time with-the way the music is presented. It rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Reminds me of Celtic Flashdance or something.

As far as where the Celtic Women fit in - I don't think they're new age music. That's folk music, mr. super-hunky!

Jeanne W

Jeanne:

The other thing I noticed listening to the celtic women show was that their songs sounded absolutely beautiful, but I could'nt make out a single word of what they were singing.

I don't know if they were singing in a foreign language or just some made up star trek kling-on language or something.

I hear what you are inferring about the "packaging" of their performance.

Hot women "strutting" around a walkway while a smoke machine pumps out some "clouds" for effect as well as very skillful lighting which appears to be rays of light shining from the heavens above.

Yes, I can see how some may think it a bit "over the top", but I can also see how this whole presentation would appeal to the masses.

It is a business after all and that should explain a lot of it!.

if they're self-described celts, stands to reason they'll be singing in gaelic, welsh or one of the other surviving celtic languages.

Here's what the greeks wrote about them way back when:

Celts:
drink a lot of, pure, wine
will easily trade a slave for a barrel wine
look savage and furious with chalk in their hair and fight naked with just a torque (neck-ornament)
are quickly furious with others; they fight easily with their clansmen, even for the best place at the table

hehe, sounds like a rowdy bunch.

Mr. Super Hunky:

Yes, it's undoubtedly gaelic they're singing in.

And if it helps popularize that kind of music, I'm all for it.

That's kinda how I got into that whole scene way back then. I first listened to Steeleye Span and a few other bands - their bag was "electrified folk". They played English folk songs but had electric guitar, elec bass guitar, drums. in their band. From there I started listening to the bands with more traditional instruments.

Jeanne W