"Bach, Beethoven, Brahms"

[Joy]

Originally posted by Amalie:
Well I have to say I have never really been a follower of the Beatles music,
But McCartney's attempt at classical mucic is more listenable than those depressing 60's songs he wrote. Though I wouldn't run out and buy this classical album.

If you would like to sample pieces from his Classical album: Working Classics: Orchestral and Chamber.
See what you think.
You can download the pieces on this page:
http://entertainment.msn.com/album/D...x?album=505169

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 16, 2004).]

Amalie you're a dear for sending us in this direction with his classical album but I guess I'm just not that interested in hearing him. Besides I always enjoyed John Lennon's music (in the past) better than his, it had more 'meat' and grit to it! Nowadays however I only stick to the tried and true classics!



------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Yes, I've never heard anything more depressing than "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"
I don't know Amalie, sometimes I have concerns about you. However, I will surmise that you were no fonder of "19th Nervous Breakdown", so I guess that all evens out.

**************

**************

Yes dear Gurn, I hate the Beatles more than you hate 'Wagner'!!
At least the Rolling Stones were rather more talented and entertaining and we have the marvellous spectacle of Keith Richards giving hope to us all that there really is life after death!!...

'I want to hold your hand'?. P..lllleeeeeasse!
I wish you never riminded me.

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 16, 2004).]

[Pastorali]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
What, you mean you're not under 30?

Hey Gurn, do you like to tell me, you are more than 30? You're sounding too fresh!!!

Seriously, I'm 37 years old, though I doubt about sometimes... Mentioned with all the people's ages here, I guess I'm somewhere in the middle, that's reassuring.

I never was a real Beatles fan, I just bought years ago this blue 'best of' album. I was (think I'm still) impressed of the later era of them.

[Gurn Blanston]

Amalie,
I thought that KR was actually the first real zombie who made it big (oh, no, that was a different group, wasn't it?) . I understand he was on speaking terms with Wagner back before electricity "enabled" him


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited March 16, 2004).]

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Joy:
Amalie you're a dear for sending us in this direction with his classical album but I guess I'm just not that interested in hearing him. Besides I always enjoyed John Lennon's music (in the past) better than his, it had more 'meat' and grit to it! Nowadays however I only stick to the tried and true classics!

Dear Joy,
The Beatles ascendancy in America is dated back to the very low ebb the country was in immediately following the J.F.K. assissination. A few months after that traumatic event they appeared on TV on the
Ed Sullivan Show in 1964 which was watched by an extraordinary and unprecedented TV audience of nearly 75 million American's.
So they were really more of a sociological phenomenon than a musical one as far as the American's were concerned. They pretty much broke up by 1966 when they stopped touring and Lennon and McCartney stopped talking to each other soon after.
Most people I know and including myself are heartily sick and tired of hearing the Beatles tired old dirge.
Give me 'Beethoven' anytime, please!!



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 17, 2004).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Pastorali:
Hey Gurn, do you like to tell me, you are more than 30? You're sounding too fresh!!!

Seriously, I'm 37 years old, though I doubt about sometimes... Mentioned with all the people's ages here, I guess I'm somewhere in the middle, that's reassuring.

I never was a real Beatles fan, I just bought years ago this blue 'best of' album. I was (think I'm still) impressed of the later era of them.

Pastorali,
Ah yes, I remember way back when I was 37, still had the whole world in front of me, and none of the cynical burnout dogging me!
Well, I am 52 actually, but it is a youthful 52 because I promised myself I would never grow up, ala Peter Pan, and I think you will all attest that this is a promise I have kept!

------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited March 16, 2004).]

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Amalie,
I thought that KR was actually the first real zombie who made it big (oh, no, that was a different group, wasn't it?) . I understand he was on speaking terms with Wagner back before electricity "enabled" him

Now we know why there was a power failure in Califonia last year. It was because of the high voltage that was required to bring Keith Richards back to life again!!

[v russo]

Originally posted by Amalie:


[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 16, 2004).]

The STONES rule~! There output from 1967-1981 can not be beat in terms of overall quality. The Beatles were always a little to contrived for my taste (and a little overrated I'm afraid). The Stones embraced American music better than any of there contemporaries (ie. the Blues) which is what has made them so enduring. Those art forms; Blues, Soul, Classic R&B and Funk music have always been enduring in the west.

GO "OLD" MICK AND KEITH!




------------------
v russo

[Pastorali]

Originally posted by Amalie:
Now we know why there was a power failure in Califonia last year. It was because of the high voltage that was required to bring Keith Richards back to life again!!

Dearest Amalie
You are somewhat cynical this evening!
Please, to all, stop talking about the Beatles, or similars.

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Pastorali:
Dearest Amalie
You are somewhat cynical this evening!
Please, to all, stop talking about the Beatles, or similars.

It's OK Pastorali, we were just having some fun. Gurn knows how to get me going, though I really love his sense of humour.
Let's ban the Beatles!!



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 17, 2004).]

[Sorrano]

And I've been waiting very patiently for someone to refer to Buxtehude as one of the 3 B's.

[Pastorali]

Originally posted by Amalie:
It's OK Pastorali, we were just having some fun. Gurn knows how to get me going, though I really love his sense of humour.
Let's ban the Beatles!!

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 17, 2004).]

Amalie
Had no problem with it! I was amused too, which is not rare, if Gurn is involved...



[This message has been edited by Pastorali (edited March 17, 2004).]

[Ellery]

first of all, those are three very diferent composers. You cant compare them. If you insist, i have to say that Bach is probably the greatest of all composers, even better than Beethoven. But they have very diferent ways of expresion. Brahms... what can i say about Brahms. The experts tell us that he is the greatest of all romantic composers. His music is very deeply, very diferent from Bach, an Beethoven, very complicated to play... Another way of expresion, diferent but cool enough. And at the end, Beethoven, myt favorite composer. He have everything, good music, very deeply, revolutionary like Brahms and Bach... these three composers are probably the greates musicians of all times. (sorry about my english, but is not my born languaje)

[Peter]

Originally posted by Ellery:
first of all, those are three very diferent composers. You cant compare them. If you insist, i have to say that Bach is probably the greatest of all composers, even better than Beethoven. But they have very diferent ways of expresion. Brahms... what can i say about Brahms. The experts tell us that he is the greatest of all romantic composers. His music is very deeply, very diferent from Bach, an Beethoven, very complicated to play... Another way of expresion, diferent but cool enough. And at the end, Beethoven, myt favorite composer. He have everything, good music, very deeply, revolutionary like Brahms and Bach... these three composers are probably the greates musicians of all times. (sorry about my english, but is not my born languaje)

Yes they are different but so are Beethoven, Bernstein and Rossini - no problems in picking the winner there!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[urtextmeister]

Brahms composed a large quantity of consistently wonderful music. I think he deserves (deserved) to be one of the three B's. I don't think you hear about the three B's so much anymore.
Trying to put aside stylistic differences, it seems to me that Brahms is the odd man out because of his sentimentality. He wore his heart on his sleeve more often than the other two.
Interesting that both Beethoven and Brahms seem to resort to fugue writing to express their deepest intentions.

I don't think, however, that fugal writing makes someone a neo-baroque composer. It is a compositional process that seems to always be with us.

I don't care much for Paul McCartney's "classical music." Has anyone heard Billy Joel's recording of "classical music" for piano. It is like someone discovered a cache of music by some justly neglected 19th century Russian composer. What is the point! Why do pop musicians think they write "classical music." Apparently they have the luxury of ignoring a hundred years of musical trends and upheavals.