In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Well I don't like Rick Astley, but I'd say he's of equal value (don't know
about quality), because he "touches" people who Mozart doesn't.

Mozart's music has been "touching" people, and inspiring other composers, for
a quarter of a millennium, long before Mr Astley's grandparents were born, and
will probably continue long after everyone who has ever heard of him is dust.
Mozart's music has been played as originally written for a conventional
orchestra, adapted for pop groups, television adverts, film music, lift music
or even telephone ring tones. Not everyone will like all of these adaptations,
but one way or another, Mozart touches everyone. He is known throughout the
entire globe. There is absolutely no comparison. Who is/was Rick Astley
anyway?

In that
sense, Mozart failed for some people, while Astley succeeded, even though I
personally can't see why.

Possibly because some people haven't had the opportunity or haven't bothered
to listen properly to some real music?

Rod.

"Mark R Penn" wrote in message
...
There's no such thing as "****" music, just music you don't like or can't
connect with. If it connects with even a tiny percentage of people, then
it's done it's job and so obviously isn't ****.

To suggest otherwise just shows a lack of understanding of what music is
for. It's not about technical ability or anything like; it's about
communicating with people.

Well, IMHO anyway

Mark

"John of Aix" wrote in message
...
Dave xxxx wrote:
Can someone please name this music

http://members.cox.net/transam57/lights.wmv

****?



Well, it wasn't anything outstanding, that's for sure, but I think that "
**** " is a bit strong ...

It served its purpose for this little demo admirably, and wasn't that hard
to listen to, unlike the crap that Jamie Cullum turns out, which is not
tuneful, not musical, not jazz, and in most cases, a hateful *******ization
of originally excellent classics.

A while ago, I had a CD player come in for repair, which had a Cullum disc
with it as an example of its intermittent skipping behaviour. It contained
tracks that were such a caterwauling noise, that I literally couldn't bear
to listen to it.

But there we have it. Loads of people in this country seem to think that the
sun, not to mention the moon, shine out of his arse, so either all of them,
or just me, must be wrong, or perhaps it really is just a matter of opinion,
like the music on the link ...

And I used to hate, and still do, Rick Astley or whatever his name was.

Arfa

Nearly all true, but not the point.

The only bit I don't agree with is that people like Astley or whatever
because they've not listened to "proper" music. Do you really believe that
anyone who dislikes Mozart is "wrong" and should educate themselves? I like
certain types of music with a passion, but wouldn't dream of suggesting that
everyone else should or is somehow uneducated because they don't.

Music is, or should be, about touching people emotionally, and because
everyone is different emotionally, there is no type of music (even Mozart
despite what you say) which touches everyone.

Mark

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Well I don't like Rick Astley, but I'd say he's of equal value (don't
know
about quality), because he "touches" people who Mozart doesn't.

Mozart's music has been "touching" people, and inspiring other composers,
for
a quarter of a millennium, long before Mr Astley's grandparents were born,
and
will probably continue long after everyone who has ever heard of him is
dust.
Mozart's music has been played as originally written for a conventional
orchestra, adapted for pop groups, television adverts, film music, lift
music
or even telephone ring tones. Not everyone will like all of these
adaptations,
but one way or another, Mozart touches everyone. He is known throughout
the
entire globe. There is absolutely no comparison. Who is/was Rick Astley
anyway?

In that
sense, Mozart failed for some people, while Astley succeeded, even though
I
personally can't see why.

Possibly because some people haven't had the opportunity or haven't
bothered
to listen properly to some real music?

Rod.

Trouble is Arfa, many people judge jazz by Cullom. People will say rock is
**** - it's not when done well. Or that classical is too; same applies. Or
any other form of music.

That's why I respond so adversely to the use of "****" to describe any
music - none of us have a right to describe someone else's likes, possibly
even passions, as "****".

My daughters listen to music that in the past I might have called ****, but
seeing how happy it makes them and how it connects with them (and for them
it IS the music, not a fashion thing), it's impossible for me to think that
now.

Agree with you about Cullom and Astley though

Mark

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"Mark R Penn" wrote in message
...
There's no such thing as "****" music, just music you don't like or can't
connect with. If it connects with even a tiny percentage of people, then
it's done it's job and so obviously isn't ****.

To suggest otherwise just shows a lack of understanding of what music is
for. It's not about technical ability or anything like; it's about
communicating with people.

Well, IMHO anyway

Mark

"John of Aix" wrote in message
...
Dave xxxx wrote:
Can someone please name this music

http://members.cox.net/transam57/lights.wmv

****?



Well, it wasn't anything outstanding, that's for sure, but I think that "
**** " is a bit strong ...

It served its purpose for this little demo admirably, and wasn't that hard
to listen to, unlike the crap that Jamie Cullum turns out, which is not
tuneful, not musical, not jazz, and in most cases, a hateful
*******ization of originally excellent classics.

A while ago, I had a CD player come in for repair, which had a Cullum disc
with it as an example of its intermittent skipping behaviour. It contained
tracks that were such a caterwauling noise, that I literally couldn't bear
to listen to it.

But there we have it. Loads of people in this country seem to think that
the sun, not to mention the moon, shine out of his arse, so either all of
them, or just me, must be wrong, or perhaps it really is just a matter of
opinion, like the music on the link ...

And I used to hate, and still do, Rick Astley or whatever his name was.

Arfa

"Paul Webster" wrote in
message ...
" Dave xxxx"
wrote:

Can someone please name this music

http://members.cox.net/transam57/lights.wmv
http://www.trans-siberian.com/intro.html
--
Rgds
Paul Webster



The track is called "Wizards In Winter" by "Trans-Siberian Orchestra"

Dave

In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
The only bit I don't agree with is that people like Astley or whatever
because they've not listened to "proper" music. Do you really believe that
anyone who dislikes Mozart is "wrong" and should educate themselves? I like
certain types of music with a passion, but wouldn't dream of suggesting that
everyone else should or is somehow uneducated because they don't.

Nobody's "wrong" to listen to shallow, trite, banal, repetitive, commercially
orientated rubbish to which practically no real musical expertise has been
applied, if it pleases them. However, a great many people are never exposed to
anything else, and many people are creatures of habit, or slaves to fashion, or
for one reason or another reluctant to try anything different from what they
are familiar with. I can't help thinking that most people easily have the
mental capacity to understand music with a bit more cerebral content than a
typical pop song if only they'd give it a try, and would probably find it
ultimately more rewarding too. There must be a reason why the likes of Bach,
Beethoven, Mozart etc are still pleasing people, even moving them to tears
sometimes, centuries after they've gone, while most pop music is forgotten in a
matter of weeks.

Music is, or should be, about touching people emotionally, and because
everyone is different emotionally, there is no type of music (even Mozart
despite what you say) which touches everyone.

Each to their own of course, but I don't think it is an exaggeration to say
that almost everyone who listens to any kind of music at all will have heard
something either written by Mozart or influenced by him (a claim unlikely to be
matched by Mr Astley), so in a way he really does touch everyone.

Rod.

In article ,
Ian Moffatt wrote:
I couldn't hear/see it all its a winbloze media thing and so was very
jerky and wouldn't load

Downloaded here as text. ;-)

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Mark R Penn" wrote in message
...
Trouble is Arfa, many people judge jazz by Cullom. People will say rock is
**** - it's not when done well. Or that classical is too; same applies. Or
any other form of music.

That's why I respond so adversely to the use of "****" to describe any
music - none of us have a right to describe someone else's likes, possibly
even passions, as "****".

My daughters listen to music that in the past I might have called ****,
but seeing how happy it makes them and how it connects with them (and for
them it IS the music, not a fashion thing), it's impossible for me to
think that now.

Agree with you about Cullom and Astley though

Mark

Quite so, Mark, quite so.

I see that someone has finally come up with the answer to the OP's question.
Interesting that its by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra. I wonder if that means
that it's actually by a Russian composer ? If you start factoring in
nationality to music, I suppose that it's going to have some effect on who
likes it. Some national things are ingrained from birth, I think.

Music is a strange thing though. Someone on this thread dismissed
contemporary performers as lightweight compared to the ' classic '
performers / composers, in terms of how long they would be around. I'm not
sure that this is true. There are probably what, I don't know, 30 perhaps '
classic ' composers, of which maybe half's work is reasonably well known ?
Over the couple of centuries that these people lived, how many more '
unknowns ' were there, that produced the crap of their day ?

Lightweight or not, do we think that the likes of The Rolling Stones or the
Beatles or The Beach Boys or Hendrix or Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin or many
others, are going to be totally forgotton in short order ? I really don't
think so, and when their music is taken in its contemporary light, it is
every bit as valid and ' classic ' as that of the old master composers.

It's strange when posters say about music touching people. It probably does,
but rarely, it actually ' connects ' with you. I don't know about others on
here, but I sometimes hear a piece of music for the first time, and I just
know that it's going to become a monster success, and will become a classic.
Many tunes which are now modern classics, have seemed that they are going to
be to me, right from the off. Look at the original Norman Greenbaum " Spirit
in the Sky ". They're still playing that one 40 years on, and will still be
playing it in another 40 years.

And much as I hate Rick Astley's music, once you hear one of his tunes on
the radio, which they do actually still play fairly regularly, you can't get
it out of your head. Now the whole original concept of BBC2's " The Old
Grey Whistle Test " was just this, so does this qualify Astley's music as '
classic ' or even good ?

Arfa

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:40:50 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Mark R Penn wrote:

There's no such thing as "****" music, just music you don't like or
can't connect with. If it connects with even a tiny percentage of
people, then it's done it's job and so obviously isn't ****.

No, some people just have **** taste in music. :-)

That would be my daughter, then. At the age of not quite two she would
dance to anything. One day I flushed the loo and she started dancing
to that.

What? Of _course_ I remind her about it every time she's listening to
music that's "hers" but not "mine"

lff

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:56:38 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

And much as I hate Rick Astley's music, once you hear one of his tunes on
the radio, which they do actually still play fairly regularly, you can't get
it out of your head.

I suspect that has more to do with Waterman than Astley.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com