Can you give an example of something that you feel has genuine expression of feeling? Like BD, I'm trying to get an understanding of where you're coming from as well.

Sure, an example first for Vivaldi:


And now another baroque composer, Händel:


And Mozart since I compared my views on Vivaldi to him:


Finally, a compare and contrast in a different but related genre.

First, Jason Becker. When I listen to this song, I get imagery in my head of an Egyptian pharaoh who is just nnot having a good day and all these different talents like court jesters or jugglers try to entertain him and they fail and finally this Queen Nefertiti-esque woman walks in and suddenly he is happy:


And now a Yngwie Malmsteen wank-fest. When I listen to this, I get absolutely no imagery, even when taking into consideration the song title, in fact when I think of the song title and any sense that one could mean by Leviathan, this musoc doesn't at all come close to matching it:


Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

The Jason Becker link is broken, but know his stuff. The Leviathon video is blank, but I know the song (luckily you'd mentioned it). One of my favorites, where he rides on the edge of a hexatonic blues scale. You obviously have very distinct tastes.

Also, I'm not sure if you were meaning to post music that HAS feeling or not. I'm a bit confused. To you, which ones of the videos you posted have feel and which ones don't?

All the ones I posted have feeling/genuine expression except Leviathan. Leviathan technically complex and magnificently played, expresses nothing.

The Jason Becker was supposed to be "Eleven Blue Egyptians".

Now don't get me wrong, I do think Vivaldi and Mozart are amazing, but that most of their most popular pieces are their worst ones.

Like if you ask if Michaelangelo was a master artist, most would say yes assuming he is and cannot say why. Even then most only know about the statue of David or the Cistine chapel abd that just basically is not doing justice to his true magnificence. There is so much more to the statue or the chapel than what mosy realise and there are many other works which are equally as phenomenal.

Or people praising Warhol as a great artist, despite the fact that Warhol himself even said his soup cans were not art and basically all of his pop art was one giant trolling od the art community (Warhol - "You can put anything on canvas these days and people will think it is art"). The only reason he did it was to make money to fund what he really wanted to do in art, the stuff nobody ever talks about or knows exists.

This is basically how I feel about "Four Seasons"




Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Ok, I think I understand you now. And I get it.

From a personal standpoint, the Becker song (as most of them are, but there are exceptions to Jason) is quite a bit of chromatic/ionian/myxolidian wankering to me, as opposed to the Yngwie tune. They both show their teeth on the chops as best as they only know how, but when Leviathon hits at 2:27 and on until the end of the solo, its quite exraordinary to find that in his style and approach, which in turn gives it a bit more feel IMO.

Don't want to turn this into a Becker vs Yingwee thread so I'll leave it at that. I do get what you are saying though... Don't believe the hype!

Again, that is all technicalities. Listening, what imagery is there, what does it say? What does it make me feel? That is why I hate Four Seasons as opposed to other works.

It doesn't matter what key or scale or way things are used - does it portray something real or is it stereotypical, emotionless dead nothingness?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

I wouldn't say it's emotionless - emotion is always there in some way or another - but perhaps the emotions are just bland/typical of such a piece? Maybe the true emotions and feelings are lost in the midst of all the "sound diarrhea".

However, I can always appreciate the skill that is displayed by musicians who play this music.

Well I wouldn't call it "sound diahrrea"...

Just that the form of expression is trite and kitschy, like saying of love, "your one true love"...

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

I thought that's what you had been implying, with all the "technical wankery" stuff. Better than no expression at all, though.

No... that's why I said more than once that complexity or technicality is not bad or the problem and that, as in my first post, I do like Vivaldi but I feel that people treat him like Mozart and many others and that "Four Seasons" was trite (lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed; dull; lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition) and kitschy (effusively or insincerely emotional; tawdry, vulgarized, or pretentious art, literature, etc., usually with popular or sentimental appeal; something of tawdry design, appearance, or content created to appeal to popular or undiscriminating taste) and that he had far better works yet that's the only one people typically know.

When I say technical wankery, I mean as differentiated from other technicality. Basically a mindless showing of skill as opposed to technical music that expresses something real.

I don't think a musician showing off skills is mindless.

You're still missing my point.

It is one thing to show off your skills, it is one thing to show off your skills and express something in a way that is not trite and kitschy, it's another whether you're showing off your skills or not if you are doing it in a trite and kitschy way.

To me... technical skill/prowess should NOT be a factor of whether or not a piece is good. The focus also should not be on how ornamental or odd or uncommon a type or mode or scale is use for a piece or any technical details of the actual writing.

It should be focused on whether or not the piece effectively conveys the idea behind it (regardless of style or skill level) in a way that is genuine rather than in a way that is trite and kitschy.

That's also why I gave the examples of Jason Becker and Malmsteen where they both have considerable skill and play highly technical music and use uncommon scales and modes, however with Becker, the music is written in a way that it actually conveys they idea, puts the imagery in your head without words while, on the other hand, Malmsteen's typically doesn't.

It has nothing at all to do with showing off virtuosity, but when it is purely just showing off skill in an composition (that's not say an étude or something that's specifically meant for showing off skill and not conveying an idea), that is when it is simply masturbation (abstractly, via the definitions of kitschy and trite that I gave in my previous post).

I think there is some truth to this. When you get tired of Vivaldi, move on to Bach. There is no getting sick of him.

Vivaldi is like the Baroque Mozart. Bach is like the Baroque Beethoven. Well, I'd say Mozart's themes are a bit more inspired than Vivaldi's though.

Probably a big reason why he was so popular in his day, and Bach wasn't.

Oddly, the Brandenburg Concertos weren't even known in Bach's day. They were discovered like a century and a half after he wrote them and there was even some debate that they were even his. These concertos, considered the finest works of the Baroque Era, were not even published until 1850.

I have actually never heard of him..but i think i might take a look on some if his work. Let's see how he is.?

I think he was a briliiant composer who wrote some glorious music, and his popularity leads me to believe this is a common view.

Viva Vivaldi!
I enjoy playing his recorder concertos a lot.
They aren't that easy to play since you need a certain skill level and breath control
to make it sound as it should. However, it's not an extremely serious music, you can perform expressively. At the moment I'm playing the recorder concerto in F major "Tempesta di Mare".

I love Vivaldi's violins. His ability to make them weep and then turn them on like gunfire is impressive. Such a versatile instrument and wonderful composer.

i like vivaldi music. I jump the part or piece which is repetitive.
repetition is indeed boring. But some part of his composition is rather beautiful and melodious. This part move my soul . The effect is very difficult to achieve.because the available source is limited for him, so some of his works are repetitive. if a lot of source is available , i believe that repetition part is much less

Stravinsky said Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 450 times (or some large number). I like Vivaldi. He had huge influence on JS Bach, on Bach's concerto style, and I think I read somewhere, on his method of "musical thinking" (planning out a composition).

a few good pieces here and there but otherwise overrated as ****

Vivaldi is fun to play and listen to, a violin virtuoso who made great baroque music that is still enjoyed. Where many people go wrong with Vivaldi is that no one improvises ornaments on top of the lines he wrote which is why it can get repetitive if your not careful.

My favorite composer.

One of my favorite classical composers. I am actually listening to a song of his right now

Vivaldi was a genius

His stuff now a days is, mostly made artistically vapid by the fact you can listen to whichever of his works you wish as often as you wish; and a lot of it sounds the same.
It's a shame when people "blame him" for that though.
I often feel a lot of these composers would have written differently had they known how music would be consumed in the future.

His 'Gloria' is a lovely work to sing. (both becasue it's well voice led, AND a great piece of music)

Welcome to MB, Dollhead :wave:

I agree with your comments about music reproduction. We often forget that classical composers never imagined the extent to which their music could be heard over and over again by a general audience. They probably assumed that, musicians apart, people might hear their music a handful of times during their lives. That must've affected what they composed. I think Vivaldi wrote great material in as much as you can catch his main ideas and enjoy them at the first listen - so perhaps a happier concert experience than some of those romantic heavy-weights.

For the record, I think Vivaldi was at his best when he played violin for Curved Air:-

Very clear, organized, and harmonious music. As unique as his style was, he seems to have influenced lots who came after him. He's also really well known and I don't listen to famous composers that often as I've heard his music hundreds of times, but each time I do I'm still in awe by it's beauty.

Really hope this catches on.

He was a great composer.

Vivaldi is....well.....a personification of one of the cliches that originally put me off classical music, it makes me cringe:

https://media.tenor.co/images/0db218...4761/tenor.gif