[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.[/QUOTE]
no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet.
Let me see..
They had the best singer/frontman of all time
the biggest single of all time
the best live performance of all time
2 worldwide anthems
all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits
voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis
i could go on forever..
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.[/QUOTE]
no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet.
Let me see..
They had the best singer/frontman of all time
the biggest single of all time
the best live performance of all time
2 worldwide anthems
all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits
voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis
i could go on forever..
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.[/QUOTE]
no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet.
Let me see..
They had the best singer/frontman of all time
the biggest single of all time
the best live performance of all time
2 worldwide anthems
all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits
voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis
i could go on forever..[/QUOTE]
They're opinions backed up by evidence. However, I'm sure there is evidence that could back up The Beatles as well.
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.[/QUOTE]
no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet.
Let me see..
They had the best singer/frontman of all time
the biggest single of all time
the best live performance of all time
2 worldwide anthems
all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits
voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis
i could go on forever..[/QUOTE]
They're opinions backed up by evidence. However, I'm sure there is evidence that could back up The Beatles as well.
I think Beatles' success underrates some of their true gems, as well as their (sometimes marvellous, sometimes not so) solo careers. Same with Queen: yesterday I listened to 'Back To The Light' and 'Another World' for the first time in years, and I realised those records will never stop astonishing me. Masterpieces from beginning to end.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.[/QUOTE]
no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet.
Let me see..
They had the best singer/frontman of all time
the biggest single of all time
the best live performance of all time
2 worldwide anthems
all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits
voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis
i could go on forever..[/QUOTE]
Get out of this thread.
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.[/QUOTE]
no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet.
Let me see..
They had the best singer/frontman of all time
the biggest single of all time
the best live performance of all time
2 worldwide anthems
all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits
voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis
i could go on forever..[/QUOTE]
Get out of this thread.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=fuchsia>Thirtynine ? wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.[/QUOTE]
no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet.
Let me see..
They had the best singer/frontman of all time
the biggest single of all time
the best live performance of all time
2 worldwide anthems
all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits
voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis
i could go on forever..[/QUOTE]
Get out of this thread.[/QUOTE]
what? you got owned and dont know what to say?
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage[/QUOTE]
No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.[/QUOTE]
no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet.
Let me see..
They had the best singer/frontman of all time
the biggest single of all time
the best live performance of all time
2 worldwide anthems
all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits
voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis
i could go on forever..[/QUOTE]
Get out of this thread.[/QUOTE]
what? you got owned and dont know what to say?
its a queen vs beatles thread right? all im doing is showing proof that the beatles are garbage compared to Queen.
Queen is a million times better band in all areas. You cant compare the two
Queen is a million times better band in all areas. You cant compare the two
Atheist,
Either you're a complete moron or some pathetic idiot hiding behind a computer giggling. Either way you're acting like a degenerate.
Perhaps if you were actually genuine I'd consider befriending you. For Christ's sake, you've been ranting on and on about how nobody knows anything about music when it's obvious you have no knowledge of even the most common concepts.
For example, it wasn't too long ago you dared to say that Freddie Mercury was (without a doubt) a greater musician than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Anybody with a brain could tell you that Mozart was in fact a greater composer and musician. While Freddie Mercury gains more credit as a musician nowadays, nobody can compare the two. They are two seperate eras with two extremely different styles in music. Mozart was a prodigy for crying out loud! One in a million! Not even Beethoven was able to make such an impact as abruptly as Mozart (and his father tried his hardest to make that kind of magic happen). I cannot express how idiotic and obnoxious you are when it comes to this topic because, honestly, it's humorous.
Another example is that even I know more about music than you (and I'm not even in a band). You said it yourself that your knowledge in music theory is limited, and that is the reason why you knew nothing of twelve tone or cadences.
Now don't think I'm holding you down with just those two statements, let us not forget in your lack of social communication. You're the one Queenzoner in this entire forum who is unable to maintain/gain support from anybody. Hell, I was willing to give you support and even did at one point, but your obnoxious and unforgiving behavior has worked against you.
As far as I'm concerned you're seeking attention because there is no way in hell somebody can be as idiotic as you appear to be. In fact, I'd love to see it that everybody would just ignore you. It takes a lot to truly get me pissed off and believe me this is nothing in comparison to what I could have been like.
Please take care of your reputation on Queenzone, Atheist. You'd find it to be quite beneficial.
Your fellow Queenzoner,
Ramirez
p.s.
For better or worse I will not reply to anything you say from here on out.
Either you're a complete moron or some pathetic idiot hiding behind a computer giggling. Either way you're acting like a degenerate.
Perhaps if you were actually genuine I'd consider befriending you. For Christ's sake, you've been ranting on and on about how nobody knows anything about music when it's obvious you have no knowledge of even the most common concepts.
For example, it wasn't too long ago you dared to say that Freddie Mercury was (without a doubt) a greater musician than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Anybody with a brain could tell you that Mozart was in fact a greater composer and musician. While Freddie Mercury gains more credit as a musician nowadays, nobody can compare the two. They are two seperate eras with two extremely different styles in music. Mozart was a prodigy for crying out loud! One in a million! Not even Beethoven was able to make such an impact as abruptly as Mozart (and his father tried his hardest to make that kind of magic happen). I cannot express how idiotic and obnoxious you are when it comes to this topic because, honestly, it's humorous.
Another example is that even I know more about music than you (and I'm not even in a band). You said it yourself that your knowledge in music theory is limited, and that is the reason why you knew nothing of twelve tone or cadences.
Now don't think I'm holding you down with just those two statements, let us not forget in your lack of social communication. You're the one Queenzoner in this entire forum who is unable to maintain/gain support from anybody. Hell, I was willing to give you support and even did at one point, but your obnoxious and unforgiving behavior has worked against you.
As far as I'm concerned you're seeking attention because there is no way in hell somebody can be as idiotic as you appear to be. In fact, I'd love to see it that everybody would just ignore you. It takes a lot to truly get me pissed off and believe me this is nothing in comparison to what I could have been like.
Please take care of your reputation on Queenzone, Atheist. You'd find it to be quite beneficial.
Your fellow Queenzoner,
Ramirez
p.s.
For better or worse I will not reply to anything you say from here on out.
well, although they're both great artists...
i'd have to say queen has the much better live show, or fans. when the beatles played live they couldnt even hear themselves because of those young twat girls screaming non stop, queen fans will actually quiet down and listen the music....
plus queen has pretty lights, and freddies stage presence.
i'd have to say queen has the much better live show, or fans. when the beatles played live they couldnt even hear themselves because of those young twat girls screaming non stop, queen fans will actually quiet down and listen the music....
plus queen has pretty lights, and freddies stage presence.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Atheist,
Either you're a complete moron or some pathetic idiot hiding behind a computer giggling. Either way you're acting like a degenerate.
Perhaps if you were actually genuine I'd consider befriending you. For Christ's sake, you've been ranting on and on about how nobody knows anything about music when it's obvious you have no knowledge of even the most common concepts.
For example, it wasn't too long ago you dared to say that Freddie Mercury was (without a doubt) a greater musician than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Anybody with a brain could tell you that Mozart was in fact a greater composer and musician. While Freddie Mercury gains more credit as a musician nowadays, nobody can compare the two. They are two seperate eras with two extremely different styles in music. Mozart was a prodigy for crying out loud! One in a million! Not even Beethoven was able to make such an impact as abruptly as Mozart (and his father tried his hardest to make that kind of magic happen). I cannot express how idiotic and obnoxious you are when it comes to this topic because, honestly, it's humorous.
Another example is that even I know more about music than you (and I'm not even in a band). You said it yourself that your knowledge in music theory is limited, and that is the reason why you knew nothing of twelve tone or cadences.
Now don't think I'm holding you down with just those two statements, let us not forget in your lack of social communication. You're the one Queenzoner in this entire forum who is unable to maintain/gain support from anybody. Hell, I was willing to give you support and even did at one point, but your obnoxious and unforgiving behavior has worked against you.
As far as I'm concerned you're seeking attention because there is no way in hell somebody can be as idiotic as you appear to be. In fact, I'd love to see it that everybody would just ignore you. It takes a lot to truly get me pissed off and believe me this is nothing in comparison to what I could have been like.
Please take care of your reputation on Queenzone, Atheist. You'd find it to be quite beneficial.
Your fellow Queenzoner,
Ramirez
p.s.
For better or worse I will not reply to anything you say from here on out.[/QUOTE]
Man, im just saying how i see it. I think Freddie is without a doubt a much better musician than mozart, im not talking about skills. Ive heard Mozarts stuff and while some of it is complex it isnt something that is special in terms of songwriting, some of it is catchy some of it isnt.
I simply think freddie is the best musician/singer there ever was or will be without competition.
Either you're a complete moron or some pathetic idiot hiding behind a computer giggling. Either way you're acting like a degenerate.
Perhaps if you were actually genuine I'd consider befriending you. For Christ's sake, you've been ranting on and on about how nobody knows anything about music when it's obvious you have no knowledge of even the most common concepts.
For example, it wasn't too long ago you dared to say that Freddie Mercury was (without a doubt) a greater musician than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Anybody with a brain could tell you that Mozart was in fact a greater composer and musician. While Freddie Mercury gains more credit as a musician nowadays, nobody can compare the two. They are two seperate eras with two extremely different styles in music. Mozart was a prodigy for crying out loud! One in a million! Not even Beethoven was able to make such an impact as abruptly as Mozart (and his father tried his hardest to make that kind of magic happen). I cannot express how idiotic and obnoxious you are when it comes to this topic because, honestly, it's humorous.
Another example is that even I know more about music than you (and I'm not even in a band). You said it yourself that your knowledge in music theory is limited, and that is the reason why you knew nothing of twelve tone or cadences.
Now don't think I'm holding you down with just those two statements, let us not forget in your lack of social communication. You're the one Queenzoner in this entire forum who is unable to maintain/gain support from anybody. Hell, I was willing to give you support and even did at one point, but your obnoxious and unforgiving behavior has worked against you.
As far as I'm concerned you're seeking attention because there is no way in hell somebody can be as idiotic as you appear to be. In fact, I'd love to see it that everybody would just ignore you. It takes a lot to truly get me pissed off and believe me this is nothing in comparison to what I could have been like.
Please take care of your reputation on Queenzone, Atheist. You'd find it to be quite beneficial.
Your fellow Queenzoner,
Ramirez
p.s.
For better or worse I will not reply to anything you say from here on out.[/QUOTE]
Man, im just saying how i see it. I think Freddie is without a doubt a much better musician than mozart, im not talking about skills. Ive heard Mozarts stuff and while some of it is complex it isnt something that is special in terms of songwriting, some of it is catchy some of it isnt.
I simply think freddie is the best musician/singer there ever was or will be without competition.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Man, im just saying how i see it. I think Freddie is without a doubt a much better musician than mozart, im not talking about skills. Ive heard Mozarts stuff and while some of it is complex it isnt something that is special in terms of songwriting, some of it is catchy some of it isnt.
I simply think freddie is the best musician/singer there ever was or will be without competition.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that evrytime you listen to music you listen through that filter. You are assuming that no one will ever be as good as Freddie, and that will be your reality, because everytime you´ll hear a song you simply will not let it be better than a Queen´s song. Not because it´s impossible, because it isn´t, but simply because you´ll not allow it to be!
It´s just you reality! But while you keep that frame for yourself you´re closing your ears to the most wonderfull music ever written! As you read this, i know you´re thinking that i´m wrong because the most beautifull music ever written it´s Freddie´s music. But answer me something:
What makes you think that Freddie was the only one who understands about music? I simply don´t see a point of mother nature saying that with all the billions of people that walks the earth Freddie will be the best composer of the universe and he will be graced with the best voice of the universe. The voice of a god!!
What makes you think this is the way it is?
On the other hand:
´What makes you think that you´re the next big thing next to Queen, and you piss on Beatles and on Mozart, Bach, etc.
If you listen closely to your Demo (i did) you´ll notice that even though it sounds good- it does!- it has some problems with the way some lines resolve. So, even though you´re developing as a musician you still don´t have the perfect pitch! But with training you will.
My advice is for you to watch the movie "Amadeus" with an open mind. Even some of it is fiction, at least you´ll get a glimpse of the Genius who died at 35 years old and could write entire Symphonies directly from the head to the paper. He could hear every instrument on his head and writed down to an entire orchestra. He didn´t have a studio for trial and error like in "Bohemian Rapsody". Got the point?
So, my advice is open your mind to new realities. You owe that to yourself if you want to become a "real" musician. If you say in an interview things like you´re better composer than Mozart or Bach you´ll simply loose respect from everybody. You´d better believe me- EVERYBODY!
There are certain things that are not debatable. One of it is that:
Bach is the greatest composer of all time. And this is not a question of taste, because every big classical musician said so. Even though Pianists love Chopin, they say that even though Chopin is my favourite, the guy that is simply impossible to match is Bach. He´s beyound comphreension. There are guy´s who devotes their lives simply recording his body of work.
And to guive you a glimpse of him:
Air from Suite nº3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyLo9-Voy5s&mode=related&search=
Toccata & Fuge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA&mode=related&search=
Johannes Passion - 1. Coro - Herr Unser Herrscher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NmjL9-3hs
Now, with Mozart that´s another story. He was a romantic and a crazy genius. Here you have a clip from the movie "Amadeus". In this clip you can hear one of the most beautifull descriptions of Mozart music ever captured on film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxgZcMGmkkI&mode=related&search=
Want catchy music? Here it is:
Symphony 40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC2ePGkmopg
And since you´re a pianist:
Rondo Alla Turca
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM0wSNq
Man, im just saying how i see it. I think Freddie is without a doubt a much better musician than mozart, im not talking about skills. Ive heard Mozarts stuff and while some of it is complex it isnt something that is special in terms of songwriting, some of it is catchy some of it isnt.
I simply think freddie is the best musician/singer there ever was or will be without competition.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that evrytime you listen to music you listen through that filter. You are assuming that no one will ever be as good as Freddie, and that will be your reality, because everytime you´ll hear a song you simply will not let it be better than a Queen´s song. Not because it´s impossible, because it isn´t, but simply because you´ll not allow it to be!
It´s just you reality! But while you keep that frame for yourself you´re closing your ears to the most wonderfull music ever written! As you read this, i know you´re thinking that i´m wrong because the most beautifull music ever written it´s Freddie´s music. But answer me something:
What makes you think that Freddie was the only one who understands about music? I simply don´t see a point of mother nature saying that with all the billions of people that walks the earth Freddie will be the best composer of the universe and he will be graced with the best voice of the universe. The voice of a god!!
What makes you think this is the way it is?
On the other hand:
´What makes you think that you´re the next big thing next to Queen, and you piss on Beatles and on Mozart, Bach, etc.
If you listen closely to your Demo (i did) you´ll notice that even though it sounds good- it does!- it has some problems with the way some lines resolve. So, even though you´re developing as a musician you still don´t have the perfect pitch! But with training you will.
My advice is for you to watch the movie "Amadeus" with an open mind. Even some of it is fiction, at least you´ll get a glimpse of the Genius who died at 35 years old and could write entire Symphonies directly from the head to the paper. He could hear every instrument on his head and writed down to an entire orchestra. He didn´t have a studio for trial and error like in "Bohemian Rapsody". Got the point?
So, my advice is open your mind to new realities. You owe that to yourself if you want to become a "real" musician. If you say in an interview things like you´re better composer than Mozart or Bach you´ll simply loose respect from everybody. You´d better believe me- EVERYBODY!
There are certain things that are not debatable. One of it is that:
Bach is the greatest composer of all time. And this is not a question of taste, because every big classical musician said so. Even though Pianists love Chopin, they say that even though Chopin is my favourite, the guy that is simply impossible to match is Bach. He´s beyound comphreension. There are guy´s who devotes their lives simply recording his body of work.
And to guive you a glimpse of him:
Air from Suite nº3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyLo9-Voy5s&mode=related&search=
Toccata & Fuge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA&mode=related&search=
Johannes Passion - 1. Coro - Herr Unser Herrscher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NmjL9-3hs
Now, with Mozart that´s another story. He was a romantic and a crazy genius. Here you have a clip from the movie "Amadeus". In this clip you can hear one of the most beautifull descriptions of Mozart music ever captured on film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxgZcMGmkkI&mode=related&search=
Want catchy music? Here it is:
Symphony 40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC2ePGkmopg
And since you´re a pianist:
Rondo Alla Turca
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM0wSNq
>> "Bach is the greatest composer of all time. And this is not a question of taste, because every big classical musician said so"
I've heard many pianists (and other musicians) say that Bach is their favourite composer. But firstly, in what sense do you use "classical"? Because Bach was a baroque-era composer, not classical. If you are using classical in the broader, perhaps non-technical sense, then that's fine.
Most musicians would agree that (J.S.) Bach was the best baroque-era composer. As for best composer in all of Western "classical" (non-technical use) music...no ways. That's more subjective.
I'm a pianist. I'd go with Liszt - that's simply my (subjective) view. Listen to his 4th, 5th and 10th transcendental etudes (for the 10th one, try Richard Pohl's interpretation). Liszt's music is soul-stirring...I also like Rach's Romantic compositions a lot more than Bach's - he's not Liszt, but he's nevertheless one of the very greatest. Others would differ. And by the way, I'm not crazy about Chopin's compositions (compared with Liszt's, anyway).
I support your tirade against Atheist. Just offering my views on your Bach comment though.
I've heard many pianists (and other musicians) say that Bach is their favourite composer. But firstly, in what sense do you use "classical"? Because Bach was a baroque-era composer, not classical. If you are using classical in the broader, perhaps non-technical sense, then that's fine.
Most musicians would agree that (J.S.) Bach was the best baroque-era composer. As for best composer in all of Western "classical" (non-technical use) music...no ways. That's more subjective.
I'm a pianist. I'd go with Liszt - that's simply my (subjective) view. Listen to his 4th, 5th and 10th transcendental etudes (for the 10th one, try Richard Pohl's interpretation). Liszt's music is soul-stirring...I also like Rach's Romantic compositions a lot more than Bach's - he's not Liszt, but he's nevertheless one of the very greatest. Others would differ. And by the way, I'm not crazy about Chopin's compositions (compared with Liszt's, anyway).
I support your tirade against Atheist. Just offering my views on your Bach comment though.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]>> "Bach is the greatest composer of all time. And this is not a question of taste, because every big classical musician said so"
I've heard many pianists (and other musicians) say that Bach is their favourite composer. But firstly, in what sense do you use "classical"? Because Bach was a baroque-era composer, not classical. If you are using classical in the broader, perhaps non-technical sense, then that's fine. [/QUOTE]
I used the "classical" word in a way that he could understand.
[QUOTE]
Most musicians would agree that (J.S.) Bach was the best baroque-era composer. As for best composer in all of Western "classical" (non-technical use) music...no ways. That's more subjective.[/QUOTE]
I used to think that, but we have to understand the real meaning of this. I once saw a great pianist (i can´t remember his name but he looks like a lunatic, his hair is a bit like Einstein and if i´m not wrong he conducts orchestras too!) guiving a very good picture of what he thought as a musician. He said that if in music there was a Holy Trinity then Bach would be the Father, Mozart the Son and Chopin the Holy Spirit. He then continued to explain this and said that his favourite was Chopin, but he simply could not explain the Bach´s work. He said that he could never list anyone on top of Bach because Bach extended music to an unprecedent level. He has written music for three lifetimes. (His "Well tempered Clavier" from where derived the Well tempered tuning are the main influence on modern Keyboard tuning.)
After i heard this guy´s explanations i did a little research on Bach´s work, and man, the "Passions" alone are worth a lifetime of work. And in this case you really have to look at the difficulty people have while performing his work. There´s a lot of things going on!
He´s not my favourite composer either (mine is Tchaikovsky), but after i heard just a glimpse of his work (voices, organ, etc) i have to agree that he´s unmatchable.
And i´ve heard other figures saying the same thing. I remember seing a box of all of his work, and dam.. there was a full suitcase filled with CD´s. And if you consider that most of his work as beautifull as it is , is also complicated, wow.. and till this day, musicians use his compositions to study counterpoint and harmony. That´s why i uderstand why some people call him the greatest (the Father).
[QUOTE]
I'm a pianist. I'd go with Liszt - that's simply my (subjective) view. Listen to his 4th, 5th and 10th transcendental etudes (for the 10th one, try Richard Pohl's interpretation). Liszt's music is soul-stirring...I also like Rach's Romantic compositions a lot more than Bach's - he's not Liszt, but he's nevertheless one of the very greatest. Others would differ. And by the way, I'm not crazy about Chopin's compositions (compared with Liszt's, anyway).
I support your tirade against Atheist. Just offering my views on your Bach comment though.[/QUOTE]
That´s normal. If you´re a pianist then it´s obvious that you´ll be listening to Liszt or Chopin. But that´s not my point. What i meant was that even though people prefer Mozart or Chopin or Lizst, in the end they all agree that BAch´s work is unmatchable (quantity filled with Quality). It´s only normal that Mozart could not achieve that body of work because he died with 35 years. Bach died with almost twice that age.
Keep in mind that this is not only my opinion, but after i heard severall guys (maestros and instrumentalists) saying this i realised that this was not a question of taste. It is what it is!
For what i´ve heard of Bach i think that it´s too much for only a human being to produce that stuff!
Take care
I've heard many pianists (and other musicians) say that Bach is their favourite composer. But firstly, in what sense do you use "classical"? Because Bach was a baroque-era composer, not classical. If you are using classical in the broader, perhaps non-technical sense, then that's fine. [/QUOTE]
I used the "classical" word in a way that he could understand.
[QUOTE]
Most musicians would agree that (J.S.) Bach was the best baroque-era composer. As for best composer in all of Western "classical" (non-technical use) music...no ways. That's more subjective.[/QUOTE]
I used to think that, but we have to understand the real meaning of this. I once saw a great pianist (i can´t remember his name but he looks like a lunatic, his hair is a bit like Einstein and if i´m not wrong he conducts orchestras too!) guiving a very good picture of what he thought as a musician. He said that if in music there was a Holy Trinity then Bach would be the Father, Mozart the Son and Chopin the Holy Spirit. He then continued to explain this and said that his favourite was Chopin, but he simply could not explain the Bach´s work. He said that he could never list anyone on top of Bach because Bach extended music to an unprecedent level. He has written music for three lifetimes. (His "Well tempered Clavier" from where derived the Well tempered tuning are the main influence on modern Keyboard tuning.)
After i heard this guy´s explanations i did a little research on Bach´s work, and man, the "Passions" alone are worth a lifetime of work. And in this case you really have to look at the difficulty people have while performing his work. There´s a lot of things going on!
He´s not my favourite composer either (mine is Tchaikovsky), but after i heard just a glimpse of his work (voices, organ, etc) i have to agree that he´s unmatchable.
And i´ve heard other figures saying the same thing. I remember seing a box of all of his work, and dam.. there was a full suitcase filled with CD´s. And if you consider that most of his work as beautifull as it is , is also complicated, wow.. and till this day, musicians use his compositions to study counterpoint and harmony. That´s why i uderstand why some people call him the greatest (the Father).
[QUOTE]
I'm a pianist. I'd go with Liszt - that's simply my (subjective) view. Listen to his 4th, 5th and 10th transcendental etudes (for the 10th one, try Richard Pohl's interpretation). Liszt's music is soul-stirring...I also like Rach's Romantic compositions a lot more than Bach's - he's not Liszt, but he's nevertheless one of the very greatest. Others would differ. And by the way, I'm not crazy about Chopin's compositions (compared with Liszt's, anyway).
I support your tirade against Atheist. Just offering my views on your Bach comment though.[/QUOTE]
That´s normal. If you´re a pianist then it´s obvious that you´ll be listening to Liszt or Chopin. But that´s not my point. What i meant was that even though people prefer Mozart or Chopin or Lizst, in the end they all agree that BAch´s work is unmatchable (quantity filled with Quality). It´s only normal that Mozart could not achieve that body of work because he died with 35 years. Bach died with almost twice that age.
Keep in mind that this is not only my opinion, but after i heard severall guys (maestros and instrumentalists) saying this i realised that this was not a question of taste. It is what it is!
For what i´ve heard of Bach i think that it´s too much for only a human being to produce that stuff!
Take care
@Bobby_brown.
I understand (and agree with) what you are saying. I had a lengthy discussion about this with an accomplished concert pianist, a German chap...the gist of which was, yes, Bach is generally accepted to be the greatest. In an "overall" sense.
But by way of analogy, to condense what might be a very long technical discussion, consider Shakespeare (and forget conspiracy theories!). He is considered, almost universally, to be the best English playwright. Quantity and, of course, quality. Innovation and the foundation for all who followed.
Back to the music. To the development of Western classical music, Liszt is less important than Bach. Everyone is, probably. Bach is the Shakespeare. Yet, in terms of technical difficulty - Liszt's works far eclipsed Bach's most difficult. And, most anyone else's (well, there was Paganini...) Furthermore, I find Liszt's compositions to be far more powerful. Not only in a personal sense; but also in a more objective, technical analysis of his music. For this reason I - emphasis on I - consider Liszt greater (yet I do recognise Bach as the most important).
I'm rambling. I'm suggesting, however, that there is a distinction between "most important" and "greatest". The former may be considered fairly objectively; the latter, I feel, has a more subjective dimension.
I understand (and agree with) what you are saying. I had a lengthy discussion about this with an accomplished concert pianist, a German chap...the gist of which was, yes, Bach is generally accepted to be the greatest. In an "overall" sense.
But by way of analogy, to condense what might be a very long technical discussion, consider Shakespeare (and forget conspiracy theories!). He is considered, almost universally, to be the best English playwright. Quantity and, of course, quality. Innovation and the foundation for all who followed.
Back to the music. To the development of Western classical music, Liszt is less important than Bach. Everyone is, probably. Bach is the Shakespeare. Yet, in terms of technical difficulty - Liszt's works far eclipsed Bach's most difficult. And, most anyone else's (well, there was Paganini...) Furthermore, I find Liszt's compositions to be far more powerful. Not only in a personal sense; but also in a more objective, technical analysis of his music. For this reason I - emphasis on I - consider Liszt greater (yet I do recognise Bach as the most important).
I'm rambling. I'm suggesting, however, that there is a distinction between "most important" and "greatest". The former may be considered fairly objectively; the latter, I feel, has a more subjective dimension.
Oh, lol, but how does this relate to the orignial topic? I'd say, using my method of classification, that the Beatles are indubitably the most important Western pop band of all time. Which band is the greatest? Dunno! Probably between Queen and the Beatles :P