Roll over Bethoven.

I am not much of a fan of classical music, but you`ve got to see this. If you are not moved by this, check to see if you are still alive, Notice the joy on the faces of people, even the children.

PS. I still think we should get out of the EU!

Brilliant! There can hardly be a better way to introduce classical music to the young and increase it's popularity, than bringing it to the streets.

But I am a classical music fan, also a strong supporter of the European project and a harsh critic of Britain's attitude to the EU.

Thanks for posting this Neptune.

.

Edited February 10, 201511 yr by flecc

Hi flecc.I know you are a classical music lover, and a fan of the EU. As I have said before, I cannot share your views, but that does not mean that I cannot respect them. Thanks, incidentally for implying that I am young! [tongue in cheek comment]To me, the great thing about this performance is that it is live, and is made to look spontaneous, although it is obviously rehearsed. The downside is that it has already given me an earworm, and I have been playing part of it on my fiddle!

Incidentally, what are the people singing, and in what language?

Edited February 10, 201511 yr by neptune

I think they are singing in German, though this could be filmed in Austria.

The Ode to Joy theme from Beethovens ninth symphony has been put to words more then once, but with roughly the words of a poem by Schiller form the anthem of the EU.

Here's Schiller's original words which Beethoven knew, in both German and English on this link but the EU version differs somewhat and is on this link, scroll down to see them. I've no doubt that's what's being sung here.

.

Edited February 10, 201511 yr by flecc

I have always been into music of one kind or another, but just lately, I have been thinking about it a lot, probably the result of trying to learn to play the fiddle. Just imagine if you were talking to a visitor from another planet, a planet where music did not exist. Suddenly music starts playing on the radio, and the visitor says "What is that noise, what is it for?"

You could reply that the purpose of music is to give people pleasure. But it is not that simple. Most of the things that give us pleasure exist as part of a survival mechanism. The purposes of having sex, or eating and drinking are obvious. Some people enjoy exercise, but it has health benefits. Music alone amongst our pleasures seems to serve no purpose other than pleasure.

And there are other things that are odd about music. Much western music is based on the eight note scale. But in a way, the five note scale is more universal. Known as the pentatonic or blues scale, it seems to have been discovered or invented in civilisations that are widely separated and have no communication between each other. It is a "free sort of scale, in that you can play it over a chord progression, and you can play the notes in any random order, and it will still sound "right" or melodic. Hence the "blues solo".

In a sense music is the universal language. During World War Two, the song "Lily Marlene" was a popular song with both the Axis powers and the Allies.

Some religions embrace music, and some forbid it. Even the mathematics behind music are weird. When a technician tunes a piano, he carefully tunes it to a mathematical formula. He then puts it slightly out of tune by a set amount. This is called tempering.

So let us all enjoy whatever music we choose. No one type of music is "better" than any other . If you enjoy it, it is serving its purpose.

Edited February 11, 201511 yr by neptune

So let us all enjoy whatever music we choose. No one type of music is "better" than any other . If you enjoy it, it is serving its purpose.

I agree, so long as the performance is for those wanting it.

Sadly some kinds of music seem to have fans who insist on inflicting it on others, often at high volume for protracted periods.

.

I have always been into music of one kind or another, but just lately, I have been thinking about it a lot, probably the result of trying to learn to play the fiddle. Just imagine if you were talking to a visitor from another planet, a planet where music did not exist. Suddenly music starts playing on the radio, and the visitor says "What is that noise, what is it for?"

 

You could reply that the purpose of music is to give people pleasure. But it is not that simple. Most of the things that give us pleasure exist as part of a survival mechanism. The purposes of having sex, or eating and drinking are obvious. Some people enjoy exercise, but it has health benefits. Music alone amongst our pleasures seems to serve no purpose other than pleasure.

 

And there are other things that are odd about music. Much western music is based on the eight note scale. But in a way, the five note scale is more universal. Known as the pentatonic or blues scale, it seems to have been discovered or invented in civilisations that are widely separated and have no communication between each other. It is a "free sort of scale, in that you can play it over a chord progression, and you can play the notes in any random order, and it will still sound "right" or melodic. Hence the "blues solo".

 

In a sense music is the universal language. During World War Two, the son "Lily Marlene" was a popular song with both the Axis powers and the Allies.

Some religions embrace music, and some forbid it. Even the mathematics behind music are weird. When a technician tunes a piano, he carefully tunes it to a mathematical formula. He then puts it slightly out of tune by a set amount. This is called tempering.

 

So let us all enjoy whatever music we choose. No one type of music is "better" than any other . If you enjoy it, it is serving its purpose.

Someone, I can't remember who, once said that "Music is the pleasure of counting without thinking" (or something similar).

It's true for me. Obviously there's the beat, but also the intervals of the notes in the melody, harmonies, percussion, arrangement etc. It's all happening at the same time, yet the human brain can keep track of it all at once.

The brain can even fill in the missing bits and imagine that they happened, even back in time. A good example of this is the classic rock n roll (4/4) intro "...2,3,4".

The brain can even fill in the missing bits

An ability often exploited in syncopation, including classical music as far apart as J S Bach and Prokofiev.

.

He then puts it slightly out of tune by a set amount. This is called tempering.

That would explain my perfect pitch, it's been well tempered.

Ode to Joy is standing the test of time well.

Shame to see it hijacked by anyone, least of all Euro federalists.

I wonder what Beethoven would have made of it?

Like many classical composers, Beethoven wrote for money, so it could be he would have been concerned only with getting the royalties.

Ode to Joy is standing the test of time well.

 

Shame to see it hijacked by anyone, least of all Euro federalists.

 

I wonder what Beethoven would have made of it?

 

Like many classical composers, Beethoven wrote for money, so it could be he would have been concerned only with getting the royalties.

I'm quite sure Beethoven would have approved of his music assisting the European project, given his German birth, Dutch family background and interests and connections in Austria and other European countries.

.

That was awesome - I am filled with awe and awaiting that sort of thing happening to me one day now! beautiful.

Thanks neptune

Brilliant stirring stuff, a day for those present not to forget. When at work driving my delivery van Classic FM is the only station I listen to.

One of my fav's is Cataturion's Adagio of Spartacus and Phrgya.

Sorry if spelling is wrong.

No problem Neal, Aram Ily'ich Khachaturian's name is probably the most often wrongly spelt of all classical composers. It's something I can associate with since my awkward surname is also spelt wrongly far more often than correctly.

Given the immense variety of names we now have in Britain following recent immigration, mis-spelling is something we'll all be guilty of at times. Sri Lankan names I find especially difficult, how can one cope with such as Varnakulasuriya, Liyanaarachchiralalage, Manamarakkalage and Wickramasuriya.

You can preview or obtain your favourite piece fourth down on this Classic FM webpage

.

Edited February 11, 201511 yr by flecc

I'm quite sure Beethoven would have approved of his music assisting the European project.

Huge assumption which has every chance of being entirely incorrect.

I think even the term 'European Project' is creepy and despicable.

If Beethoven were alive today, and if he were pro EU, I'm afraid my CDs of his work would be heading for the dustbin.

I was tempted to comment on the European Project, but have said plenty on other threads, so instead I want to say something about Beethoven. I am reminded of a Benny Hill sketch which was a spoof of Mastermind.Benny was the question Master.

Benny. "what was Beethoven doing in the year 1828?

Contestant [played by the little bald guy] Composing?

Benny. He died the previous year. He was decomposing...

Flecc talked about "unwanted" music. I once had a family next door who played loud music at unearthly hours. Definitely not pleasurable. Then there is the situation of being stuck in traffic next to a car which has music so loud you cant hear yourself think, and there is no escape.

I read about a block of flats where they had a problem with teenagers causing a nuisance by gathering in the communal lobby. They planned to solve the problem by installing a sound system and playing classical music all the time. I often wondered if they then had problems with drunken pensioners holding rowdy gatherings in there! Just kidding..

Rap is not music.

It's the only crime for which the death penalty is appropriate.

Rap is not music.

It's the only crime for which the death penalty is appropriate.

Nope. You missed out "Garage" and beatboxing and being in a "boy band"

It always amuses me when people describe Westlife and similar outfits as boybands. When I were a lad, people in bands played instruments, it was de rigeur. I think that one thing that puts people off classical music is the snobbery involved. I am a working class lad and proud of it. I will admit to being an inverted snob.

On Tv last night I watched an interview with Sir Simon Rattle. He was considering coming back to UK, but was put off because our concert halls were apparently not up to standard. It is strange how those guys playing out in the street in Austria didn`t have a problem. Incidentally, why did all those musicians have to wear clawhammer jackets? To me, it would have been just as exciting if they had worn boiler suits, or jeans and Tee shirts. In fact I think I would have preferred it, but that is just me. The posh attire seems to say, " We are a breed apart, we are not just peasants like you, we are the elite, and our music is not for common people." I admit that this problem maybe exists only inside my head.

Why is the violin considered to be a better instrument than the guitar? A guitar has frets, making it harder to play a wrong note. It also has geared tuning pegs, making tuning easier, as opposed to the violin which has crude wooden pegs stuffed into tapered holes. Perhaps it is because the violin takes years to master, indeed so much time that anyone who has to work for a living would find it hard to spare the time? These are just my thoughts, and I would love to hear what others think.

Simon is right about many of our concert hall acoustics, London's in particular, the open air doesn't suffer in the same way. The problem with buildings is the way sound bounces around off the walls and other fitments, and since sound is waves of air pressure, when they meet fully out of phase they cancel each other to create areas of relative silence. When they meet to a more partial degree they can create odd harmonics spoiling sound quality. As Simon said, the science of these acoustics is very recent, so many older halls are very poor, though some have been happy accidents.

London has been very unlucky, the Albert Hall is a round structure, the worst possible shape for accoustic quality and has been subject to various treatments to alleviate the worst effects. Chief of there was the addition of what look like flying saucers high up and shown here, their sizes and positions being by design to break up the most harmful reverberations.

London's Barbican Centre Hall is another acoustic failure, it can be like listening in a tunnel in some of the seating positions. The Festival Hall is another with many problems, so severe that some years ago it had a number of amplifiers and speakers added onto the sides in many positions to fill in the dead spots. Thus those going there to listen to live music can be in seating positions listening to electronically reproduced sound. London's best acoustic hall is Croydon's Fairfield Hall, and it's been used for some well known classical recordings in consequence. It was once the home of the Royal Philharmonic orchestra, Sir Thomas Beecham's own, but the decline in classical concert popularity means that it more recently was down to being the home of the London Mozart Players.

Nationally we have the odd outstanding halls. Birmingham's modern perfectly designed hall is excellent and why Simon is such a good judge, since he was the conductor of the CBSO there before taking over from Herbert Von Karajan at the Berlin Philharmonic. The Halle and other orchestras at Manchester are similarly blessed, we have a number of other good ones so not all is bad here.

Now to the violin. Tradition plays a part in classical practice of course so there is resistance to change, but it's also true that no matter hard we try, we have been unable to improve on many instruments. The violin in particular reached a point of perfection three hundred years ago, and it's sound depends on two things, the instrument and the skill of the player. As such, the sound of a violin and player or a group of violins together can vary from agonising to ethereal beauty.

It's that imprecision which allows the finest performer and instrument to transcend to such a degree, something that could not happen if the instrument were to be "improved" to make it easier to play. That would have a levelling effect to a middling quality, ok in the world of mass production but not for achieving the greatest in any field of the arts.

I too detest the snobbishness connected to classical music and happily wear jeans when going to concerts. The attire of orchestral players though is simply due to tradition rather than any snobbishness, reflecting the long history of classical performance. There are often concerts where the players do sometimes wear different attire, open air in summer, special events etc.

Fascinatingly as I've typed, following Simon's comments, the BBC Radio 4 PM news program has had a feature on hall acoustics with a clarinet being played in three concert halls for listeners to compare the quality. They took care not to include any London halls, telling it's own story! The differences are quite dramatic, so you might like to listen to that on the i-player on this link, starting at 49 minutes 10 seconds.

.

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by flecc

Flecc, many thanks for going to all that trouble. You know, in spite of the differences we have, we have an awful lot in common. First , accoustics. Back in the day, when I played in a rock band, I remember a gig we played in a local village hall. The hall was newly built, and had only been open a few weeks. We were the first, or one of the first live bands to play there. The village was proud of its new hall. It consisted of two sections, each circular with a domed roof, and the sections were of slightly different diameters.

From the air, it would look like a figure eight. The gig was an unmitigated disaster. Firstly, we could not hear ourselves. Half the audience complained we were too loud, and half said they could hardly hear us. I was well pleased when it was all over, and pitied anyone else performing there.

Re clawhammer jackets, [i just love that term.] As you say it is all tradition. Also if you were going for a job in an orchestra, or pretty much any job, you would wear your best clothes.Even if it was for a job as a mechanic or a lorry driver, you would put on clean overalls. As I said, the problem is mainly in my head.

Violins and guitars. They are different instruments, work differently, and do different jobs. If you pluck a guitar string, the note will sustain for several seconds. If you finger a violin string against the fingerboard, and pluck the string, there is very little sustain, and the amplitude decays rapidly. A damped oscillator. In a guitar, the string is free to vibrate between a fret and the bridge. In a violin, one end is held by the pad of the finger tip, which is a lot softer than a fret.The only way to get sustain is to continually excite the string with the bow. I think of it like this. The guitar is a glider, and the violin is a powered aircraft.

Can the violin be improved? You can now buy geared tuning pegs which make tuning easier. Also most violins, including my cheapie, are fitted with fine tuners behind the bridge to facilitate fine adjustments. I don`t think such aids degrade the instrument, and may even make it accessible to a wider audience.

As I see it[ as avery experienced fiddle player of eight days standing} a good violin would be one that produces all notes at the same level. I think this was achieved traditionally, by varying the thickness of the wood of the front and back of the istrument in strategic places.In other words, the wood thickness varies across the front or the back. Traditional craftsmen achieved this by a lifetime of trial and error. Results were unknown until the instrument was finished and varnished.

Today we have frequency generators to vibrate a panel on its own at any given frequency. We can monitor the vibration by sensors, and plot the results with an oscilloscope. We no longer stumble blindly in the dark. I find it hard to believe that we can not do a better job.

Recently some blind tests were conducted with twenty accomplished violinists, and three violins. One violin was a Stradivarius, one was a modern $40,000 job, and one was a cheap mail order special. In blind tests, only three musicians correctly identified the Strad. What does it prove? I am not sure but I sure found it interesting.

Incidentally there are two places that stick in my mind as having brilliant acoustics for singing and playing acoustic guitar. One was a room in the local arts center, which was originally the dining room [Refectory?] of a Dominican Friary, built in the 1300s. The other was a pedestrian underpass in the city of Lincoln.

I think I may have heard that particular violin test, I've certainly heard many, but none have convinced me that an "improved" instrument reaches the heights of the best. Many newer instruments I've found horrible sounding at times.

I found your account of that disastrous village hall interesting, once again incorporating some circular spaces within the shape which are well known to never reproduce good even sound. I'm reminded of Sir Thomas Beecham's comment on the new Royal Pavilion in Brighton which apparently had poor acoustics. He'd been invited to conduct an orchestra there and was expected to give a speech afterwards, something he hated doing.

After the performance he addressed the audience to give his speech which was:

"Congratulations on your new hall, I hope you find a use for it".

.