http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgZhiYff7nM

Is it classical? New age? Techno? What? Does it matter who this guy is, or can we classify the music based on the music itself?

Would you say that the music he plays in the beginning should be considered the same style as the music at the end, just because he's the same person?

I love the Beethoven quote, by the way.

Wow! That was pretty wild, Sam. The beginning sounded more classical/neo-classical to me, then the section around 2:05-3:15 shifted into prototypical new age, but from 6:00 on it was electronica / heavy metal. Maybe it should all just be considered acid rock in the Rick Wakeman/Yes sense.

I'm guessing, though, that the classical purists will not be eager to claim him as one of their own.

Looking at the other suggested videos that popped up on YouTube, it looks like he has gone from 6-foot long hair to totally bald, or vice versa!

:)

But where do we put his music in the music store? This is of the utmost importance. People often grow tired of these discussions, because it seems to be just a question of semantics... but those semantics have practical value and nessesity.

Do we take his "neo-classical", "new age", and "heavy metal" (to use your descriptions), and just put it all together with everything that Dream Theater produces? Then it's not really anything musical that's binding it all together... it's just the fact that it's the same composer.

Or, do we split it all up, and put some in one section and some in a different section? At what point is their music so diverse that we are forced to find some way of putting them together anyway? At what point does the reputation of the group become more important than the music, such that people will expect it all to be in the same place?

If there are any vocals anywhere in his work, I'd file him with the rock groups. Failing that, electronica/techno. New age as a last resort, and I'm predicting the Chopin and Beethoven CDs would self-destruct if you tried to file him in classical.

I agree that the labels are important. I'm still feeling frustrated that we never arrived at a viable (to me) distinction between new age and classical in that one thread a few months back.

I think the problem is that "classical" is so vague.

Take everything (except folk and recent popular styles) from the last 1000 years, and put it all in one section.

Divide everything else up into a million and five genres.

No matter how you slice it, is an opera by Peri from 1600 Italy at all the same style as a solo piano etude by Ligeti in 1990 United States? No, of course not. Operas don't sound like solo piano music. Violins don't sound like tubas. 1600s music doesn't sound like 1900s music.

Today we distinguish between heavy metal and punk rock -- in 1730, people distinguished between empfindsamer and galant. But today, nobody listens to empfindsamer (C.P.E. Bach) or galant (J.C. Bach) enough to have any non-academic basis for distinction. But back in the Bachs's days, the difference was clear as night. Guess what -- C.P.E. Bach, W.A. Mozart, and Domenico Scarlatti all lived during the 1700's... but they're music is wildly different.

Today, some bands are "cross-over" by writing both vocal and instrumental in a couple of styles. Beethoven wrote piano sonatas, string quartets, songs, symphonies, an opera.... feh, it's all the same.


But, some music from 1880 Germany might share certain similarities with music from 1580 Italy. And some pop music from 1980 U.S.A. might share some similarities with both. How strong, and how important, are those similarities? How about the differences?

No music is an island... we all influence and are influenced by everyone else, which is why such categorization (semantics aside -- worry about putting apples and apples together, first, before deciding what to call them) very difficult.

Well, this piece is on the tripple CD "live scenes from New York" that because of the majority of it's content will most likely be found in the heavy section. (Interesting trivia: the album was first released on September 11th 2001 and the original cover featured New York in flames. Talk about bad timing... The discs were quickly withdrawn from the stores and the cover art replaced.)

Another similar question: If I was to arrange Beethoven's sonatas for heavy band (guitar, bass, drums, keyboard), where would you place that record in the music store?

I agree.

Besides the need for 'semantics'/'academics' that makes us divide music into categories. There is also the 'social' aspect of dividing music into different genres.

Teenagers work this way. "We only listen to rock." "We only listen to metal." .. "Classical is boring." etc. As if the same person will hate a piece of music just because "it is not rock".

Semantics/Academics are needed, but not when it interferes with ones tastes or judgement.

I agree. Now pick a teenager who only loves whatever style Dream Theater happens to be called (I don't know what that is) -- would they listen proudly to all of the music in that video? Perhaps, but they wouldn't listen to any other solo piano music, no matter how similar in style to the first piece on there.

People identify; but the identification often seems to be entirely seperate from musical taste.

There is a different issue, here, too, brought up by Bassio. It's the issue of social and individual identification.

Now in the age of computers, music can actually be fitted into different categories. A CD on amazon.com can be listed with several keywords: "classical", "romantic", "symphony", "Brahms". So it will show up under any of these searches. Gershwin can be listed as *both* classical and jazz. Billy Joel's new piano concerto can be listed as all of "classical", "rock", "piano", "concerto", "Billy Joel", "neo-classical"...

But this undermines strong identifications that, as Bassio mentioned, have strong underpinnings among a lot of youth (and adults, too).

Monica -- you like that Transsiberian group that does the classics in rock arrangements, right? What kind of music is that? (Which is Witold's insightful question) More importantly, however, how do people identify with that, and how do we base our "stylistic" classifications on the ways that people expect to (and already do) idenify?

IF Dream Theater was to perform the 3rd movement of the Appassionata, I'm quite certain that most people who don't know the original would assume it is a new instrumental composition by Dream Theater. Stylistically this particular movement is very close to the progressive metal that they usually play. Perhaps they should do just that, would be a great way to expose classical music to new listeners. After all, sometimes I feel Beethoven was quite a progressive rock musician...

Sure do! Got my tickets for the 11/17 show in Lexington already.

I'd call them heavy metal, myself, despite the fact that most of what they play is either classical or traditional Christmas music. They're playing it with loud blaring electric guitars, however, while wearing leather jackets and whipping around their waist-length hair (men and women alike), so that rules out classical entirely.

Just for fun, I looked to see how Rhapsody classifies those groups. TSO it's got under "holiday music" (no help there). Dream Theater it lists under "Progressive metal," which is a subcategory of "metal," which is classified under "rock/pop."

And then when you add in the whole notion of identity, as Bassio and Sam point out, it adds yet another level of complication. But it is true that some people are willing to listen to TSO when it is called "heavy metal" but would shun it if it's called "classical."

Witold, when I've seen releases of classical music played on modern instruments and adding in drums etc., it's always been filed either under rock, metal, or new age, depending on how prominent a role the drums/guitars play in it. The only time I've seen modern recasting of classical stuff appear in classical bins is the group "Aria" which sets opera arias to electronica.

In this video that I posted, he plays part of Beethoven's "Rage over a lost Penny." I could see him grinning through it -- but you have a good point. How many people just assumed he wrote it, not knowing it's really Beethoven?

On a similar note, how many classical fans know that Liszt did not write theme of his Totentanz? Nothing in the title tells us the theme is an old Christian chant from the Middle Ages.

That was exactly what I expected... Now I'd like to ask why. If it is a pure transcription of the notes with some beats added on the drums, then the music is still the same as the original classical music. Apparently this says that the instrumentation decides in which shelf it should be. But I can't see why those instruments should be viewed differently than the traditional instruments. In the "classical" shelf you can find all of those instruments in various modern pieces. Also, if you look at this problem in the other direction, then according to this logic Apocalyptica should be in the classical shelf when they play Metallica on four cellos...

Great point, Witold. I would add that there are also so many different instruments (and different combinations of instruments) used in classical music.

Let's list them:

- piano
- acoustic guitar
- drums
- saxophone
- violin
- viola
- cello
- bass
- flute
- trumpet
- tuba
- celesta

... well, let's not. There are way too many! So how is it that all of these instruments sound the same, and yet different from the electric guitars?

Dream Theater is awesome.

They're usually classified as "progressive rock."

You should hear their drummer, Mike Portnoy. He's incredible.

I guess you'll think I'm an uptight boring snob (possibly not entirely untrue) but I think he belongs in a Keyboard-Improv corner, not Pianists Corner.
I think I know how much Jordan Rudess is interested in the mircale of touch: about as much as in going to the barber.

I don't think you're an uptight boring snob.

What style of music do you think it is that's he playing in the beginning there?

The beginning sounds like etude material.

Is there such thing as a "non-classical etude"?

Actually he did go to the barber. He had his head shaved.
Jordan Rudess

What kind of music is this?
Bad music.

Oh, the humanity!

( )

Is it "bad", as an internal quality of the music itself, and/or is it "bad", as an external quality of you not liking it?

Both of them my friend. Both of them.
Sorry. I'm following BruceD.
I quit.

This forum will lack certain eloquence and wonder if Cultor quits. At least I hope my stubborness in the "Melody" thread isn't responsible...

Certainly not Antonius.
I'm tired, that's all.
I'm tired because I'm old.
I've lost all of my opinions.

Nah. As you once said of me, "you're a great idea mover in this forum." You're very much appreciated, and respected.

Of course you're free to leave if you'd like; whether you stay or leave, you should know that you've left a good mark.

Be bold because you're old
act young then you will almost feel young
we don't have a long time on earth, do we?
and Cultor, you're creative verbiage has always
interested me, so I, for one, would miss you.

Well, you can find some of those lost opinions scattered around the piano world. Perhaps you should stay to regain them? If not, then read Borges in the original Spanish for me, will you (as I must limit myself to translations).

Of course. An etude is just a study, and there are several jazz etudes published for various instruments.

It's easier to define in sociological terms what is happening, than in musical terms.
Mr. Rudess is musically a very gifted person, who unfortunately uses his talents for pop culture music. He has probably heard a lot of classical music. To impress his audience, he improvises in the first minutes of this clip on classical style and even manages to stick out his tongue (musically speaking) to poor Beethoven. Great technique in fingering that horrible machine in front of him. I wonder if he can play piano.
By the way, is he trying to procreate with that multi-purpose machine around 3:22 into the clip?

My three year old son just walked into the room and said (in dutch) that that guy has crazy hair.