Which classical composer are you?

[imported_Tick]

You are:


Maurice Ravel
He shaped a new orchestral voice that gave the world a beautiful alternative to Germanic bombast.

 

[funkymatt]

Sergei Prokofiev

This acerbic Russian wrote some of the most wryly funny music ever, and also some of the most passionate.

 

[Madwand1]

I couldn't answer question 2, so I didn't, and based on just variations on question 1, I get Bach or Handel or Beethoven, which is good enough for me, so to speak.

 

[mooglemania85]

You are:

Gustav Mahler
The last of the great German romantics, he developed the symphony to an epic scale.

 

[Akhen]

Giacomo Puccini
The philandering Italian who crafted some of the most unforgettable operas ever written.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: mk
You are:

Jean Sibelius
The master of Scandinavian gloom.

I had that one too.

 

[tailes151]

Johannes Brahms
The greatest of the romantic symphonists, he championed "pure" music with no outside meaning attached to it.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

Pretty Cool!

Gonna have to forward this to all my classical music loving friends.....

 

[mikej007]

Giuseppe Verdi
The king of Italian opera.

 

[Soulchaser]

Seems nobody got mine yet:

You are:

John Cage
The composer who refused to write actual music. He created largely random soundscapes in an attempt to induce the audience to listen mindfully to everyday noises.


Now I can fight in Mortal Combat!

 

[sobriquet]

Originally posted by: Soulchaser
John Cage
The composer who attempted to challenge the way we think about and understand music. He created chance-based compositions that incorporated noises from the natural world in an attempt to induce the audience to listen mindfully to everyday noises.

Fixed.

 

[MidasKnight]

Johann Sebastian Bach

 

[Zenmervolt]

Richard Wagner
This German opera composer was unexcelled both in self-importance and in artistic ambition -- he worked on a bigger scale than anyone else dared to tackle.

No surprise there. Wagner has always been my favorite.

ZV

 

[theknight571]

Johann Sebastian Bach

Only a hundred years after his death was he recognized as possibly the profoundest musical genius of all time.

I guess I just another one of the Bach crowd.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Soulchaser
John Cage
The composer who attempted to challenge the way we think about and understand music. He created chance-based compositions that incorporated noises from the natural world in an attempt to induce the audience to listen mindfully to everyday noises.

Fixed.

Bull. That's like the "artists" who think a blank canvass is worthy of being hung in a gallery, or all this modern crap that gets called "art" but looks no different than a 3-year-old's fingerpainting.

If it's a random composition (and "chance-based" is just another way of saying "random") with generic, everyday noises mixed in, it's not music. Music is structured and non-random.

ZV

 

[sobriquet]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Soulchaser
John Cage
The composer who attempted to challenge the way we think about and understand music. He created chance-based compositions that incorporated noises from the natural world in an attempt to induce the audience to listen mindfully to everyday noises.

Fixed.

Bull. That's like the "artists" who think a blank canvass is worthy of being hung in a gallery, or all this modern crap that gets called "art" but looks no different than a 3-year-old's fingerpainting.

If it's a random composition (and "chance-based" is just another way of saying "random") with generic, everyday noises mixed in, it's not music. Music is structured and non-random.

ZV

I'm not going to argue about "artists" versus artists. Those arguments never go anywhere, as we all know.

"Chance-based" does not mean "random." Here's a question: do humans ever act randomly, or are all actions based on some kind of structure? Call that structure human nature, culture, or whatever you want, but even when we attempt to act "randomly" our actions are affected by our own personal choices, which are in turn affected by some structure outside of ourselves.

Again, this is going to go nowhere, so I'll just go ahead and concede the "argument."

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sobriquet
"Chance-based" does not mean "random." Here's a question: do humans ever act randomly, or are all actions based on some kind of structure? Call that structure human nature, culture, or whatever you want, but even when we attempt to act "randomly" our actions are affected by our own personal choices, which are in turn affected by some structure outside of ourselves.

Random != lack of external influence. "Chance-based" absolutely does mean "random"; it's part of the definition of the word "random" for pete's sake. Google "define: random" and you'll find the following:

lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance

Random means an uncertain or equally probable choice or outcome, without pattern and dictated by chaos or chance.

by chance, like the flip of a coin

A group selected randomly, solely by chance.

Furthermore, cultural influence does not negate the ability to act randomly (i.e. without a definite plan, purpose, or pattern).

In essence, I reject your implied premise that external influence is synonymous with having a pattern and posit that human beings can, and sometimes do, act randomly.

ZV