Bush and Blair singing "Gay Bar"

[Alex]

Well, it is a funny clip...

http://www.gaybetamax.co.uk/flash1.html

[Stefu]

We can't forget this, either.

The gay theme's getting passe, though. I want to see them singing "Kill the Poor" by Dead Kennedys next.

[Alex]

Hey, but this music is better than "Endless Love"...

My favorite part is when they sing "Let's start a war... start a nuclear war... at the gay bar" and then Bush does the "waaaaaaaaawooow" thing.

[Boris Godunov]

Is "Gay Bar" a well-known song?

Because it's a pretty terrible piece of music.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Because it's a pretty terrible piece of music.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who likes Brahms.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's pretty rich coming from someone who likes Brahms.

Narf narf.

Enduring musical pieces written by Brahms: hundreds

Enduring musical pieces written by Agathon: ?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Enduring musical pieces written by Brahms: hundreds

Yes, they go on, and on, and on.....

Give me Wagner any day; Brahms is the musical equivalent of a Trabant.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, but I wouldn't trust your musical opinion farther than I could throw you.

Wagner is for pigs. The tubas practically oink for you. I'm not surprised you're a fan of his, however, given his penchant for sanctimonious drivel *cough*Parsifal*cough*.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yes, but I wouldn't trust your musical opinion farther than I could throw you.

Which wouldn't be very far.

Wagner is for pigs. The tubas practically oink for you.

What's the point of being a classical music fan unless one can reignite 19th century flame wars?

Brahms never wrote anything that comes close to Tristan either musically or philosophically.

You'll be expressing admiration for Bruckner next.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

...given his penchant for sanctimonious drivel *cough*Parsifal*cough*.

Yes Parsifal is crap.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
Brahms never wrote anything that comes close to Tristan either musically or philosophically.

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. Nothing in the Brahms repetoire comes close to being as musically tedious or philosophically pompous as Tristan, no.

I do love the Wagner miracle--you know, it's how you can sit down at a Wagner opera at 7:00 PM, three hours will go by and it will be 7:20.

You'll be expressing admiration for Bruckner next.

Any Wagnerian should also appreciate Bruckner, as Bruckner was one of his musical disciples. Bruckner's 8th is chock full of references to Siegfried and Tristan.

Like Wagner, Bruckner also has a penchant for the incredibly long, loud and boring. But he had something Wagner lacked, which was humility.

The 19th Century flame war was pretty one-sided. Wagner heaped abuse on Brahms to no end, acting every bit the part of the jealous, obnoxious rival. Brahms simply ignored him, occasionally expressing his appreciation for some of Wagner's music. Who's da bigger man, huh?

I think Rossini said it best:

"Wagner has good moments, but bad quarter-hours."

[Agathon]

Wagner was the future of music. Brahms is simply an overrated conservative. There's no question that Wagner was a complete churl, I don't think anyone would dispute that Brahms was the nicer guy, although not by much.

And the flame war was not one sided. Brahms' toady, Eduard Hanslick, was pretty harsh on Wagner's music and at least as obnoxious (I once had to read some of his stuff for a course in aesthetics). But this isn't about who was the nice guy, but about who was the better composer.

Anyway, without Wagner, no Mahler, Schoenberg, Berg ... face it, no modern music. The man revolutionised the Orchestra and paved the way for the coming revolution.

Without Brahms... ..?

Anyway, even if you hate Wagner, I hope you don't hate Sibelius. I picked up an excellent recording of the "Lemminkainen Suite" on sale today (Vanska and the Lahti SO) - check it out, the guy has a real feel for the music.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
Wagner was the future of music. Brahms is simply an overrated conservative. There's no question that Wagner was a complete churl, I don't think anyone would dispute that Brahms was the nicer guy, although not by much.

...

Anyway, without Wagner, no Mahler, Schoenberg, Berg ... face it, no modern music. The man revolutionised the Orchestra and paved the way for the coming revolution.

Without Brahms... ..?

Ok, there ya go... Berg to...what? Wagner led to Atonalism, which died in the 1950s, at the latest. Schoenberg himself declared it dead. You are aware, however, that Schoenberg was FAR more influenced by Brahms than by Wagner, aren't you? It was Schoenberg who thoroughly analyzed the method of Brahms's development, counterpoint and rhythmic structure. He used these in his own music, albeit in atonal form.

This vaunted "revolution" was a dead-end. It had the fortunate by-product of producing Mahler, but even his reliance on Wagner is overplayed. He was very much a creative individual.

Brahms' conservatism is overstated, a product of unfounded stereotype. He used old forms and techniques, such as sonatas, concertos, counterpoint etc., but he was by no means conservative in his use of rhythm and harmony. Indeed, his music was very anticipatory of jazz in this regard (listen to the F minor piano quintet). Brahms was at the forefront of ethnomusicology in his day, being strongly influenced by traditional folk music of Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe (like the Hungarian dances). In addition to Schoenberg, he was certainly a major influence on other composers, most notably Dvorak and Bartok.

In that sense, Wagner's music branched into a bunch of musical artistic chumps, while Brahms's remained more earthy and went into more popular forms. Suits me fine.

And the flame war was not one sided. Brahms' toady, Eduard Hanslick, was pretty harsh on Wagner's music and at least as obnoxious (I once had to read some of his stuff for a course in aesthetics). But this isn't about who was the nice guy, but about who was the better composer.

Brahms didn't put Hanslick up to anything, and Hanslick was responding to Wagner's own vitriol, and that of his own lapdog, Hugo Wolf. It does not, IMO, excuse Wagner's outright cruelty to a contemporary who did not treat him with remotely comparable contempt.

Anyway, even if you hate Wagner, I hope you don't hate Sibelius. I picked up an excellent recording of the "Lemminkainen Suite" on sale today (Vanska and the Lahti SO) - check it out, the guy has a real feel for the music.

I don't hate Wagner, I appreciate some of his work. I enjoy Sibelius, but he isn't exactly Wagneresque...

[Agathon]

I never said that Sibelius was Wagneresque (he's pretty much on his own), and I never said that Brahms put Hanslick up to anything. For a start he didn't have to - he was the establishment.

For me Brahms conservatism is evident in his music. I find myself after listening to it asking "so?".

The vaunted revolution may well have petered out, but it produced some great music along the way and a new sense of what an Orchestra could do. That's enough to keep RW in the firmament.

I'm sorry, I just can't empathize with Brahms at all - it's just stodge to me. And Rossini? Well there you go.

[DRoseDARs]

Because it's a pretty terrible piece of music.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who likes Brahms.

Man, I didn't even crack a smile at that video (gay bar). The "endless love" one was funnier, sorry Alexmn.