What kind of music would Plato, Newton, Wittgenstein, etc. listen to today? Ready, set go!

On a side note, what exactly is "intelligent" music?

They would listen to everything. There is no "intelligent" genre. There is music that is well-written and poorly written. There are good, interesting lyrics, and there are mudane bad lyrics. There are good performers and bad ones. Examples in these categories vary on taste.

We have much more variety than Plato and Newton were ever exposed to; I think that would make them happy.

No such thing as an intelligent genre, as whitewolf pithily stated.

I agree with the above re intelligent, but seem to recall hearing that baroque chamber music, I forget which kind, made your brain work harder and was also more calming and soothing, and thus was found to help people do better in tests.

Id say dimmu borgir did something pretty damn clever with that song progenies of the great apocalypse,this site will let you listen to it for $0.10c
http://www.mp3search.ru/album.html?id=9876&ref=4163&lang=en

Crank those speakers up! if you do that is

Just exactly what qualifies music as "intelligent"? Intricate, complicated, difficult to understand at first hearing? Or intellectual lyrics about deep subjects? Long pieces with a lot of dynamics and development?

William Faulkner and Gabriel García Márquez are universally acclaimed as having written "intelligent" literature. But I have to take my wife's word for it because she has an M.A. in English and she can understand it. It just gives me a headache.

If you're using the same kind of measure to identify "intelligent" music, and you're talking about relatively recently composed music with lyrics as opposed to 150-year old purely instrumental symphonies, I don't believe anything has yet surpassed the Progressive Rock movement of the early to mid-1970s. A lot of it was calculated and phony and people love to focus on those tunes when they put down the 1970s, but a lot of it was both musically rich and quite literate.

From a cultural standpoint, what would you say is the hierarchy of music? Typically, "classical" goes on the top, but I'd like you guys to dissect that even further. It's far too general of a term, like "rock".

Usually "classical" goes on top because the only people who usually get so enthused about discussions of this type are the old-fashioned people who prefer symphonies to popular music. All "classical" means in any context is art created in an earlier era that is still understandable and enjoyable by those same old-fashioned people. So in music it means symphonies, etudes, concertos, operas, ballet scores, everything my parents and your great-grandparents liked while they were telling us how Elvis Presley was the end of civilization.

I get a kick out of the coinage of the phrase "classic rock." Somebody stole the fuddy-duddies' word from them. Of course it's just a new generation of fuddy-duddies who think that the music of the Rolling Stones and Elton John is intrinsically better than that of Velvet Revolver and Jon Mayer.

"Classical" is a word with more connotation than denotation. It tells you how the person who's using it feels about modern culture. Someone who is disconneced from the accomplishments of his own era and thinks everything was better "in the old days."

"Rock and roll" at least has a meaning: "A type of jazz music generally characterized by extensive and often intricate syncopation; a prominent and steady rhythm with an overriding backbeat; electronically amplified instruments usually including one or more guitars, a bass guitar, and an elaborate drum set, but in its later stages relying increasingly on synthesized and sampled sounds; a blues modality; singing without the vibrato, careful enunciation and other artificial polish of earlier eras and often deliberately screamed, and in its later stages 'rapped' unmelodically; topical lyrics often calculated to be offensive to non-fans; and an often dangerously high volume also calculated to be offensive to non-fans."

Interesting that during the first decade of rock and roll, it was anybody's guess which instrument would be the defining one: the electric guitar, the saxophone, or the piano.

They would listen to everything. There is no "intelligent" genre. There is music that is well-written and poorly written. There are good, interesting lyrics, and there are mudane bad lyrics. There are good performers and bad ones. Examples in these categories vary on taste.

We have much more variety than Plato and Newton were ever exposed to; I think that would make them happy.

I disagree. Music has varying degrees of complexity and expression; we can argue about how it's all on a level plane, but once one has experienced the world, the notion that Jimi Hendrix or Black Sabbath equal Beethoven's 4th Symphony is laughable.

I'm interested in knowing where metal would fit into. Most metal bands sing about topics that are rarely touched by the great majority of musicians (religion, or anti-religion, for one). But whatever work they put into their lyrics, it's all nonsense to me because I cannot understand anything they're saying because of all that growling.

arch enemy is good, excellently composed music, good(antiamerican) lyrics, and just the precision at which they can play such complex music

If you turn the volume up to the max you can easily understand the growled lyrics in metal music. Just a hint from someone who knows. :D

I disagree. Music has varying degrees of complexity and expression; we can argue about how it's all on a level plane, but once one has experienced the world, the notion that Jimi Hendrix or Black Sabbath equal Beethoven's 4th Symphony is laughable.

Sure, Beethoven's 4th Symphony might be more complex, just because it was written to be played by many more instruments. But is the content really better than that of Black Sabbath? Which lyrics have more meaning?

There are many things that are quite artful, or artistic, whatever you want to call it. Beethoven, Wagner, Scrijabin, van Gogh, Rembrandt, all their works are complex, well executed/painted, but do they carry an important message or are they just art?

What are the criteria for intelligent/smart music, or art in general, the way it was made or the message it contains?

I disagree. Music has varying degrees of complexity and expression; we can argue about how it's all on a level plane, but once one has experienced the world, the notion that Jimi Hendrix or Black Sabbath equal Beethoven's 4th Symphony is laughable.How utterly arrogant! I'm no knee-jerk rock fan who dismisses with contempt any music without an overwhelming backbeat. I attend the symphony and the ballet. But I find Beethoven to have absolutely everything that has been derided on this thread about worn-out old music. It is absolutely boring. The formula chord progressions, the predictable rhythmic dynamics, the medieval melodies, even the symphonic structure itself... hell, even the makeup of the symphony orchestra is no less trite than Black Sabbath at their best, and considerably more so than Jimi Hendrix at his best.

If you want to defend "classical" music against charges of predictability and overuse of moldy old motifs, you have to fast-forward to the end of the nineteenth century and keep going through the die-off the the symphonic form in the postwar era. Vaughn Williams's "The Lark Ascending." Strauss's "Metamorphosen." Almost anything by Debussy, Satie, Chaikovski, Prokofiev, or a half dozen other composers who revived the "classical" forms in the face of the onslaught of "popular" music -- and pulled it off. And the composers who bridged the gap and then jumped into it: Ravel's "Bolero," Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue," Philip Glass and Steven Reich.

Beethoven's music is not bad music and it's inarguably more challenging than the average pop tune. But it's built entirely of components that have been beaten to death for centuries. Once you've heard it a few times it has no more surprises and revelations than "Jailhouse Rock." It is just as much topical music, rooted in its time, as the Beatles' "Abbey Road" and Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon." Those are great compositions that will surely be listened to for a couple of centuries and I don't think we can be certain that Beethoven would not be proud to be considered their peer, even if he might personally prefer Gershwin or Rachmaninoff.

Music, like any art, must connect with its audience. Visual art seems to retain that connection the longest. We still shiver when we look at statuettes pulled out of Neolithic sites and revere architecture that was built three thousand years ago. Verbal art comes close. We marvel at Homer, swear on the bible, and quote Machiavelli in boardrooms. Music unfortunately seems to have the shortest connection period. After the passage of just a few generations, most of it, to most people, starts to become more old and less venerable. After a few centuries it's merely quaint, a delight for scholars and hobbyists.

The absolute best music of any era has what it takes to stand the test of time. Beethoven used those now-hackneyed formulas to make those stodgy old-fashioned orchestras sing to the heavens. But the lesser composers of his time are not so lucky. We're too close to the giants of the Romantic and Post-Romantic Era to predict whether it will be Rimsky-Korsakov, Chopin, or one of the others who will be the Beethoven of the last century. And it's certainly impossible to predict whether a tune by the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis, Bob Dylan, or Sarah McLachlan will be the "Home Sweet Home" or "Greensleeves" of future generations.

But we can predict that most of the people of future generations will listen mostly to music of their time, because music is a topical artform and old music must be not only great but lucky to be able to speak to new people.

Umm, what he said. ^

Tool is intelligent.

Does listening to "intelligent" music reflect the inherent minds of its listeners? Or does the lure of intellectual pretension provide ulterior motives? Certainly, different artists have a wide range of brain capacity (e.g. Britney Spears vs. Bono), but does that follow into their audiences?

My big question is: Do you get into jazz (insert any hoity-toity music here) because you're smart, or are you smart because you're into jazz?

about classical. i can listen to some classical music, like a lot of beethovens, and le danse macabre, but that happy-joy uppidy classical a lot of people listen to is bullshit

vslayer,

What IS the happy-joy uppidy classical music?

The phrase "intelligent music" is a biological impossibility.

nbachris2788, i dont know what its called but theres a damn lot af it around

§outh§tar, yes, its impossible for music to be intelligent, however what is being asked is what genre is preferred by the intelligent, and what helps us to become intelligent.
eg.

metal and most rock:
complexity of the music requires your brain to take in more information faster, therefore increasing your ability to learn. the variety of words used increases your vocabulary immensely

rap:
the simple 5 or 6 notes played in constant repetition with some sex addict talking overtop of it and naked women dancing in the videos, leads to a slower information intake, aswell as subliminally burning the lyrics into their brain so that when they when they hear it on the radio they go on a "mating" frenzy in which many will abuse or rape women. also, the words which seem to be commonly used by rappers are cheap immitations of english words which leads to people having literacy problems

well, --to the original poster of this thread--i dont look up to those people you present as 'intelligent'. i consider myself fairly intelligent-in-process-of

this is what i hate......we have quite a lot digital channels on our radios yes?....but nearly all of them have to same noise. ie., when you surf though them you get the same fukin sound, which i am callin corporate-big-buks-iwannabefamous/hip sound

We used to have a station called JazzFM, the music on that was the best around. but the soft sods sold out, and now its called 'smoothfm'...they play smooth 'soul'...no jazz now, cept maybe midnight....cant tell you how pissed of i was, and i pritested, but you see they was RUNNIN A BUSINESS! made me hate my fellow citizens by not tuning in to such gret music

so now, i have been forced to listen to classicalfm.........

what i would like, is world jazz, ethnic musics. anything, ANYTHING but the usual shit that nearly all the stations play

I like classical music and tool, that’s about it. its kind of strange, the more I learn about the world, physics, philosophy, and history and so fourth the less I like music. I find my self on occasion turning the radio off on long car trips to do calculus in my head, or to formulate a philosophical theory. I guess I find my enhanced mind more entertaining than music.

what we need is for websites to have people contribute mp3s to it. get a server for high quality internet and XM radio thus the people will choose the music, not the corperations.

The most interesting music I discovered recently, is Andaluz; medieaval Arabic music from Spain, which is related to Byzantyne Turkish music. Featuring the Oud (Arabic lute) it is deeply contemplative and spiritual and a predecessor of flamenco.

Recently I bought a Tzouras (3 double string mini bouzouki tuned DAD), which is a featured instrument in Rembetika (subversive Greek/Turkish music from the 30's) and which, it-self, is a derivative of the aforementioned genres.

This is the most amazing instrument... with a nasal, twangy kind of tone (like a banjo with double strings) and a thin, easy to play neck, I can improvise on it for hours, tripping through quasi, eastern sounding ragas and melodic patterns, to blues and rock rhythms and licks, I defy any guitar player to play one for a while and then not want one. Pass da bong!

They would listen to Tool and Incubus. Especially old Incubus.

The most interesting music I discovered recently, is Andaluz; medieaval Arabic music from Spain, which is related to Byzantyne Turkish music.Actually when the Christians retook Iberia they stamped out as many relics of Moorish culture as they could. Taught the people boring hymns to Jesus and took away their instruments. Folk songs weren't set to sheet music then so it pretty much disappeared. What you're hearing now is a scholarly and well-meaning attempt to recreate what Andalusian music might have sounded like during Moorish rule. A few shreds of poetry that survived, current folk poetry of the region, grafted to Arabic melodies and instrumentation.Featuring the Oud (Arabic lute) it is deeply contemplative and spiritual and a predecessor of flamenco.In other words, the reconstructionists have done a good job. They have evoked the spirit of the region and the era without any primary source material. I have a friend (an Assyrian) who plays the oud, right down to using the quill end of a feather as the plectrum. It's pretty easy to figure out that flamenco has strong Arab roots, since it uses the same modality as today's Arabic folk music.Recently I bought a Tzouras (3 double string mini bouzouki tuned DAD), which is a featured instrument in Rembetika (subversive Greek/Turkish music from the 30's) and which, it-self, is a derivative of the aforementioned genres.Don't ever say that to a Greek. As far as they're concerned, it was they who invented all the instruments now used in the Middle East as well as the musical motifs. My Greek landlord almost evicted me when he heard me telling someone that the Turks created that stuttering 2-2-2-3 rhythm that's so common in both countries and left it behind as a token of the Ottoman occupation. Even Dave Brubeck titled his composition with that rhythm "Blue Rondo a la Turk."This is the most amazing instrument... with a nasal, twangy kind of tone (like a banjo with double strings) and a thin, easy to play neck, I can improvise on it for hours, tripping through quasi, eastern sounding ragas and melodic patterns, to blues and rock rhythms and licks, I defy any guitar player to play one for a while and then not want one. Pass da bong!Sounds like you're reinventing the 1960s. Back then it was Indian instruments and modalities, but the idea was the same. Reinvigorating the genre by injecting motifs from another culture.

Check out Shakira's monster Spanish hit "Ojos Así." It's on the blockbuster CD "Dónde Están los Ladrones," with the song that got her airplay in every American city with a Mexican-American community, "Ciega Sordomuda," and also on her MTV Unplugged album. Or the much lamer English-language version, "Eyes like Yours," on the "Laundry Service" CD. It demonstrates how easily Arabic and Spanish music can be fused even in the modern era. It's got ouds and finger cymbals and an Arabic-language bridge. The video is worth looking for, turns out that in addition to all her other charms she's a very accomplished belly dancer. (Her father is from Lebanon and her surname is Mebarek.)

While in Seville recently, I overheard this snatch of music in an antique shop and I fell in love with it. With the help of an interpreter, the lovely lady in the shop wrote down the title of the album, Le Jardin de al Andalus, by Eduardo Paniagua. I could have bought the album in Seville, had I visited a particular palace there, but I never had time. Apparently, you can't buy this type of music from ordinary record shops and I was told I'd be able to get it from the Prado museum in Madrid, which I was going to the next day but, as luck would have it, the specialist exhibition that had been there, had just recently moved to Seville (SCREAM)!

Anyway, no problem I thought, I'd just find it on the web and get it from there. There are 2 suppliers of this album, 1, is the US agent of Pneuma Records who will not sell you anything less than 4 albums and who did not reply to my enquiry e mail and 2, is Goldberg's, a specialist music magazine, who haven't got their web shop together yet, but who would rather sell me a subscription to their mag rather than the music they are promoting... it, is so frustrating!

You're probably correct when you say the Greeks think they invented everything under the sun (not that you actually said that), but Greek musicians aren't as ignorant about the roots of their music, though there is a subtle difference from Turkish and Arabic, both in the instruments and the melodies, which gives Greek music its own unique character. Of course, some of the scales (dromi) that are used, are acknowledged as Taksim, A la Turk etc and are definetly Ottoman in nature.

I am actually Greek Cypriot and I indeed was there in the (late) 60's, doing the old Ravi Shankar/Hendrix/Clapton fusion thing on my SG, but the Tzouras is, as I have discovered, my 'soul' instrument and living in Cyprus 11 years now, the Greek/Turkish music influence is much stronger than the quasi Indian stuff I would try and emulate back then.

How utterly arrogant! I'm no knee-jerk rock fan who dismisses with contempt any music without an overwhelming backbeat. I attend the symphony and the ballet. But I find Beethoven to have absolutely everything that has been derided on this thread about worn-out old music. It is absolutely boring. The formula chord progressions, the predictable rhythmic dynamics, the medieval melodies, even the symphonic structure itself... hell, even the makeup of the symphony orchestra is no less trite than Black Sabbath at their best, and considerably more so than Jimi Hendrix at his best.
/.../
Beethoven's music is not bad music and it's inarguably more challenging than the average pop tune. But it's built entirely of components that have been beaten to death for centuries. Once you've heard it a few times it has no more surprises and revelations than "Jailhouse Rock."

Khmmm ...
I feel sorry for you, I really do. :p
It seems that *all* you hear in music is "the formula chord progressions, the predictable rhythmic dynamics, the medieval melodies, even the symphonic structure itself" -- you are one hell of an analytic listener. And certain music is boring to you because the only way you can listen to it is analytically.

Just from Beethoven, I know all the symphonies, most of the string quartets, seven piano sonatas, 3 cello & piano sonatas, several uvertures and whatnot by heart. I have heard each of them several dozen times, and I *never* get bored of them. Same goes for many other composers.

I bet *any* music would be awfully boring if I would listen to it analytically. But my, am I glad that I cannot listen to music analytically!

***

Does listening to "intelligent" music reflect the inherent minds of its listeners? Or does the lure of intellectual pretension provide ulterior motives? Certainly, different artists have a wide range of brain capacity (e.g. Britney Spears vs. Bono), but does that follow into their audiences?

I bet it does, at least to some extent. The problem with classical music is that it is usually surrounded with this aura of being "intelligent music for intelligent people" -- but if you go to a classical concert, most of the audience will be ... well, *intelligently* sitting there, with a motionless, expressionless face, even though the performed music could be so jolly that one would want to dance to it, or so sad that 10 tissues would not dry up the tears.

What I'm saying is: If people aren't moved by the music they are listening to, what does this say about the relationship they have with this music? If the music they are listening to is no more but a fleeting pleasant dainty one throws inside oneself, and then moves on, then I'd say they don't care much about that music, but are at the concert for some other reasons (like being a socialite).


My big question is: Do you get into jazz (insert any hoity-toity music here) because you're smart, or are you smart because you're into jazz?

Personally, I abhore jazz in general because it makes me so intellectual, smooth, aloof, "yeah, it's cool, man", and I also have to be in that sort of state to listen to it. (Which I rarely am, so I rarely feel like listening to, phew, jazz.)

To answer your question: I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. In general, people do what makes them happy, what pleases them, and when they do that, their pleasure is enhanced (to some degree) by what they are doing; so there's no simple linear explanation for this phenomenon.

Music falls into 3 categories... Crap, Bland and Great and this applies to all genres of music. Ok, sometimes some music is difficult to get into, but that's usually because the person is either an inexperienced listener or because they try and use 'difficult' music as background muzak, instead of actually listening to it and getting into the grooves.

Great jazz is simply Great, but a lot of people can't or won't get in the mood for it, because it's too esoteric, too expressive of pained spirit and most people prefer to look outward at a bland world rather than look within.. maybe they find it too scary. Most modern jazz is very accessible, groovy and funky and teeming with emotion and amazing musicianship, but, if it makes one feel 'intellectual', what's wrong with that?

nbachris2788, i dont know what its called but theres a damn lot af it around

You should know what it is before dismissing it as crap.

i have heard it, i know its crap, i dont know the names of these songs but they suck

vslayer, you're going to have to at least give a very vague description. Was it atonal and "noisy"? Was it Baroque-like with harpsichords? What was it like?

you cant judge music, people like different musics. Theres no such thing as bad music unless the people who created it think it is as such. there are no 3 categorites, u cant break things down into 3 categories. jeez.

... once one has experienced the world, the notion that Jimi Hendrix or Black Sabbath equal Beethoven's 4th Symphony is laughable.

How... extremely arrogant. That is one shallow perspective.