Thread: Most Powerful, Epic, Angry, Intense Classical Recommendations

Originally Posted by nickgray

I think both views (aesthetic and mood-altering) are valid. It's very pleasing to "analyze" the music - hearing all that subtle sounds interweave with one another, creating new patterns, I really enjoy playing in my head some additional variations and sounds when I'm listening to something, playing with rhythm... But it's also great to stop thinking and let the music flow, touching your emotions, feeling "general feeling of greatness", sadness, anxiety, calmness (is there such a word? calmness?...). Anyway, it's hard to explain. I hope you got my point

Aesthetic appreciation need not involve analysing a piece whilst listening to it (indeed, aesthetic appreciation is often distinguished from the intellect because it involves the senses).
Anyway, my point was that one ought not to treat music like a drug, i.e. to deliberately seek something out to produce a specific effect. Of course music does effect certain emotions in one, but ultimately (and this was my point) my mood is more determined by the quality of the piece. I also think that music and musical works, if they are good, tend to be far more complex and nuanced than can be compartmentalised into crude and oversimple categories of emotion such as 'angry', 'powerful' (how can a piece be 'powerful' anyway?) etc.

Herzeleide has a point.

Music shouldn't be over intellectualized. In my opinion, you start loosing enjoyment for it when you analyze it to death.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the sounds.

Originally Posted by JTech82

Herzeleide has a point.

Music shouldn't be over intellectualized. In my opinion, you start loosing enjoyment for it when you analyze it to death.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the sounds.

"Enjoy the sounds..."

I once told a new-comer to classical in this forum "to have fun." I was, in short order, taken to task fot this by another member who told me music should not be fun...music is much more than simple "fun."

Beware Jtech, you may be told that you are not supposed to "enjoy" music. I guess listening to a classical piece should be a solemn, serious ritual in which you must scowl and not feel one bit of emotion.

That's a bunch of poppycock. Of course I listen to music to have fun, and i certainly enjoy the experience. Doesn't mean that I shouldn't feel sad if I listen to Barber's Adagio for Strings or something like that...I often do. The the feeling of emotion that comes from listening to a good work is, I'd say, something of a psychic experience, something that is life enriching and thus, in a round about way, something I do "enjoy" and something that is...yes..."fun."

So, all of you who tell me music should not be enjoyed need to listen to Suppe's Light Cavalry Overture, eat some pizza and then go to Disneyland. We'll get you smiling, somehow!

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

"Enjoy the sounds..."

I once told a new-comer to classical in this forum "to have fun." I was, in short order, taken to task fot this by another member who told me music should not be fun...music is much more than simple "fun."

Beware Jtech, you may be told that you are not supposed to "enjoy" music. I guess listening to a classical piece should be a solemn, serious ritual in which you must scowl and not feel one bit of emotion.

That's a bunch of poppycock. Of course I listen to music to have fun, and i certainly enjoy the experience. Doesn't mean that I shouldn't feel sad if I listen to Barber's Adagio for Strings or something like that...I often do. The the feeling of emotion that comes from listening to a good work is, I'd say, something of a psychic experience, something that is life enriching and thus, in a round about way, something I do "enjoy" and something that is...yes..."fun."

So, all of you who tell me music should not be enjoyed need to listen to Suppe's Light Cavalry Overture, eat some pizza and then go to Disneyland. We'll get you smiling, somehow!

Music is supposed to be enjoyed. That's why I listen to it. I like darker, epic pieces (whatever that means) as much as the next guy, but some of the best classical music grabs you almost instantly. Like for me last week it was Ravel's Le Tombeau de Couperin, especially the opening of that piece. It sticks in your head and makes you feel good.

I certainly don't go down the street humming Langgaard, not to say that he didn't compose some hummable melodies, but I find myself humming more Tchaikovsky, Vaughan Williams, Ravel, and Stravinsky the more time goes by.

Like I said, music shouldn't be over-analyzed, but what works for some people doesn't work for others. Some people feel they have to know what key, what scales, what the time signature, etc. are to enjoy it. Not me, put the music on, I'll tell you in 5 minutes if it's something I can dig or not.

u wanna hear sumthin relli epic - Varese's Ameriques.

I was listening to the (unfortunately little known) ballet Salome by Japanese composer Akira Ifukube today. Written for a large orchestra, it contains big, exotic thrills to be sure. The concluding pages of the work are among the most crushing, bombastic, percussive moments in music, I'd have to think. Herod orders his guards to seize and kill Salome (we all know the story) and the music that accompanies this scene truly invokes brutal terror.

THIS, I'd think, would be a metalhead's delight.

Frankly, (and this is not an extension of the tongue-in-cheek suggestions made earlier) I have found ballet music in general to be more aggressive and louder than a lot of other orchestral works. It's too bad most of the general public thinks of the likes of The Nutcracker and Swan Lake when hearing the word ballet. Metalheads should never innately hesitate when they see the word "ballet" on a CD!

What a great comment, Rondo! Music from ballets is often pretty "big" stuff.

Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet contains some "aggressive" moments, as did, certainly his music froman aborted ballet which became the Scythian Suite. (Surprised THAT has not been mentioned yet.)

Khachaturian's Gayne and Spartacus also contain moments of loud grandeur. These are both ballets.

And let's not forget the Rite is a ballet, too. Definitley no pink tutus in this one.

Having said all of that, even Swan Lake has "large" moments, though not brutally so like in the Rite. But the final part of that ballet has some very loud music with gongs, snare drums and big tuttis from the orchestra.

Originally Posted by Rondo

Metalheads should never innately hesitate when they see the word "ballet" on a CD!

Um yeah... Rite of Spring??? Still, I don't think such a request is by its nature deserves tongue in-cheek responses, because even works like the Rite are not simply 'epic, powerful, angry...' etc. Works with such moments in them - think of Beethoven 5, or the nihilistic, heart-attack-inducing last chords of the finale of Mahler 6, have the so-called angry and epic moments off-set by moments of tenderness, or whatever we'd like to think of as the antonym of epic, powerful etc.

Like I say, this only serves to reinforce my belief of language's inadequacy at really describing the infinitely subtle, elusive and complex expressive effect of the best music.

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

"Enjoy the sounds..."

I once told a new-comer to classical in this forum "to have fun." I was, in short order, taken to task fot this by another member who told me music should not be fun...music is much more than simple "fun."

Beware Jtech, you may be told that you are not supposed to "enjoy" music. I guess listening to a classical piece should be a solemn, serious ritual in which you must scowl and not feel one bit of emotion.

That's a bunch of poppycock. Of course I listen to music to have fun, and i certainly enjoy the experience. Doesn't mean that I shouldn't feel sad if I listen to Barber's Adagio for Strings or something like that...I often do. The the feeling of emotion that comes from listening to a good work is, I'd say, something of a psychic experience, something that is life enriching and thus, in a round about way, something I do "enjoy" and something that is...yes..."fun."

So, all of you who tell me music should not be enjoyed need to listen to Suppe's Light Cavalry Overture, eat some pizza and then go to Disneyland. We'll get you smiling, somehow!

I remember that discussion (several of us were involved, all with somewhat different takes on the matter, if I recall correctly), though it seemed to me then, and still does now, that we probably didn't differ really all that much in our responses to music - only in the way we talk about it. I think that old discussion was about language, primarily, though perhaps none of us realised it then.

I'm trying to think of one of these intensely dramatic pieces, and I suppose for me the 'Liebestod', from Tristan, would probably register very prominently. The intensity is all but overwhelming; the feelings oscillate between devastating loss, sexual fulfilment and the acceptance of oblivion. Now - if at the end I said it had been 'fun', I feel that I'd be giving a very misleading account of what I'd just experienced. If I said I'd 'enjoyed' it - well, that would be true in an extremely broad sort of way, but again, it would seem to me to be inadequate. To give a more accurate idea of how I felt, I'd have to try alternatives like 'shaken to my roots'; 'emotionally drained'; 'profoundly moved'. If I were forced to describe it as 'fun', it would represent a breakdown of communication. Or at least, I would believe it was a breakdown, which would be just as bad.

Of course in general terms there's an awful lot of fun to be had from music. In my current exploration (I almost wrote 'explosion', because I'm enjoying myself so much) of Baroque, fun is abundant, and I often find myself waving my hands about in delight, or even laughing out loud. That really is fun, in the way I understand the word. But I feel I need (that is, it's important to me) to distinguish between that kind of experience, and the 'Liebestod' kind of experience. As I said, I think it's about the language we use when we compare notes with each other, not the way we actually listen.

Well, Elgarian, not to rehash a previous discussion, music will always elicit a subjective experience. My experience of listening to music will differ from yours in so many ways. You will like composers I don't and vice versa. You wil like certain works that I don't and vice versa. Neither of us would be inherently incorrect in such a case, just different.

Though music like Tristan und Isolde may contains moments of extacy, there is also agony. Yes, one may feel agony as a result of being touched by the music, but the experience of being touched like that "feels good," somehow, even though it makes you feel sad. It's this feeling of being connected to something on a higher plane of existance that I find fulfilling, addicting, and sure...entertaining...dare I say fun. I mean, if it really did make you depressed and devestated beyond repair, I don't think anyone would listen.

I think it's the same principal as attending a sad movie or play. While the subject matter may be down-right depressing, we still go to the movie or the play to be entertained in some sense. No one ever says "I like going to the movies because it makes me want to kill myself," but rather, someone who goes to the movies often probably does so because s/he enjoys the experience, though s/he is not always seeing the most up-lifting stuff.

This is how I feel about music. Music can be profound, life-affirming, life-changing, terrifying, mystifying, tear inducing...all of that. The agony and the extacy. But being psychically connected to these sounds in such a way that causes these various emotions is, again, quite stimulating, and thus, an ejoyable experiece. It is the exciting experience of being taken somewhere very far from your mundane life. Well, my mundane life, anyway.

That's the last I'll say on this so I don't go too off topic, but perhaps I have articulated myself better this time around.

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

Yes, one may feel agony as a result of being touched by the music, but the experience of being touched like that "feels good," somehow, even though it makes you feel sad.

That's very eloquently put.

It's this feeling of being connected to something on a higher plane of existance that I find fulfilling, addicting, and sure...entertaining...dare I say fun.

I know exactly what you mean by that. And by all means say 'fun' if you like (but I understood you better without it).

I mean, if it really did make you depressed and devestated beyond repair, I don't think anyone would listen.

Exactly so. We'd be mad.

This is how I feel about music. Music can be profound, life-affirming, life-changing, terrifying, mystifying, tear inducing...all of that. The agony and the extacy. But being psychically connected to these sounds in such a way that causes these various emotions is, again, quite stimulating, and thus, an ejoyable experiece. It is the exciting experience of being taken somewhere very far from your mundane life. Well, my mundane life, anyway.

This is my experience also - almost perfectly described, moreover. I think we have this thing sorted, more or less, as long as we're careful about using the 'f' word!!

So, enough of this nitpicking nonsense. Put Ride of the Valkyries on the player, Tapkaara, very loud, and bring on the custard pies! The rules are simple: whenever they sing 'Hoyaho-oh!', one of us throws a pie.
You can have first throw.

Well, I'm glad that while we may still disagree over the use for the word "fun," at least you can see my other points, and I'm enthused that you agree with them.

Can we make it a banana cream instead of custard?

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

Can we make it a banana cream instead of custard?

Of course. I'm sure banana cream will prove even more f......

Hahahaha, it really is more fun, to be sure.