Music for 2K Test?

[chgoss]

Bon Jovi - Keep The Faith
Deep Purple - Highway Star

Need to turn it up so that I cant hear my breathing

[Jamie Pfeffer]

Phil: I'm in awe of well-rounded knowledge of many, many things. I would be honored to write a recommendation letter to Georgetown. They would be very lucky to have you. And remember, now that Laurie and I have an extra erg, we'd be glad to have you stay with us any time you need a break from your school's gym.

CH: Highway Star is a great song for the erg. Thanks.

Best,
Jamie

[sparson92]

i like to take minute chunks of songs, and play them throughout my piece. my latest playlist is:

welcome to the jungle-Guns N' Roses
Revenga- System of a Down
I see you baby-Groove armada
Rockafeller Skank- Fatboy Slim
Spitfire-Prodigy

[sparson92]

also, i agree with chgoss in that turning up the music really loud so you cant hear your breathing can help a lot

[cutle1]

If anyone needs any audio editing (for free, of course ...) please let me know. It is possible to stretch some songs out to your 500m split time without it being obvious. I have done this for spin classes and my own rowing, and the results are great.

Sometimes it is possible to repeat a section of the song to add a couple seconds here and there.

I've even started mixing in some famous speeches in with the music for inspiration. Sensory overload. I'll cut the mix to my exact 2K time

John

[johnlvs2run]

Thanks for all the great suggestions of songs.

Cutle1,
I've been wanting to take an except of a rowing video, say 10 strokes, and repeat the same 10 strokes over and over In addition, to set the rate to be any rate that I choose. For example if the 10 strokes are at 38 spm, to set the video to play at 32 spm.

Is there an easy way to do this?

Thanks.

[Rocket Roy]

No.4 in D minor, Op. 13.
No.8 in G major, Op. 88.
No.9 in E major, Op. 95 ("From the New World")


Let me know if you listen to any of these pieces!

Phil

well...no...but I'm going to give these a go.

Could you answer a couple of questions please?

Why do you list say "in D minor"? Do they do it in B major or something else that isn't as good as D minor?

And what does Opus 13 mean please?

and Number 9 in E major---from the new world---is there another one from somewhere else.

Please excuse these questions if they are stupid or crass, but I'd like to know more and need something else to listen too I get so bored with pop/rock music.

cheers,

Roy

[Yankeerunner]

No.4 in D minor, Op. 13.
No.8 in G major, Op. 88.
No.9 in E major, Op. 95 ("From the New World")


Let me know if you listen to any of these pieces!

Phil

well...no...but I'm going to give these a go.

Could you answer a couple of questions please?

Why do you list say "in D minor"? Do they do it in B major or something else that isn't as good as D minor?

And what does Opus 13 mean please?

and Number 9 in E major---from the new world---is there another one from somewhere else.

Please excuse these questions if they are stupid or crass, but I'd like to know more and need something else to listen too I get so bored with pop/rock music.

cheers,

Roy

Roy, you never cease to amaze me. I've been curious about these and similar things but never had the nerve to put it down in writing. You, on the other hand, 'Just Do It.' You're the man.

P.S. Bob Dylan probably got his ideas for song titles such as 'Rainy Day Women #12 & 35' from such classical titles. But I'm just guessing there.

[Byron Drachman]

Phil wrote:

(--snip--like the rest of his trite music... sorry, Wolgangerl!--snip--

Hi Phil,

I'm guessing you were a little tongue-in-cheek with that posting. Mozart's piano and violin sonatas are among the most sublime music ever written, and should be included in any desert island collection.

Added later: I did a quick search at youtube. Here is a sample. Click on the link. With this I rest my case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjnUj4TVKQ0

Byron

[DavidA]

No.4 in D minor, Op. 13.
No.8 in G major, Op. 88.
No.9 in E major, Op. 95 ("From the New World")


Let me know if you listen to any of these pieces!

Phil

well...no...but I'm going to give these a go.

Could you answer a couple of questions please?

Why do you list say "in D minor"? Do they do it in B major or something else that isn't as good as D minor?

And what does Opus 13 mean please?

and Number 9 in E major---from the new world---is there another one from somewhere else.

Please excuse these questions if they are stupid or crass, but I'd like to know more and need something else to listen too I get so bored with pop/rock music.

cheers,

Roy

Roy,
I think the reason for giving the key might be that it gives one a little more idea about the mood of the piece for instance.
Opus means work, i.e. opus 13 is the composer's 13th published work.
Some pieces are named by the composer, or others, in addition to having an opus number. So, in this case, his opus 9 has the title 'From the New World'.

David

[Rocket Roy]

Thanks David, so what is the difference between say E major and F major, or indeed can you give a short run down on what mood would be for each key please?

Cheers

Roy

[Byron Drachman]

Roy wrote:

so what is the difference between say E major and F major, or indeed can you give a short run down on what mood would be for each key please?

Hi Roy,

I don't think there is an easy answer to your question. If you're interested, here is a short discussion on different keys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music)

For some instruments, if not all, certain keys are easier to play than others. For example, on a flute C sharp and E flat aren't quite as good notes as some others. It has to do with the compromises made in placing the tone holes and keeping the mechanism relatively simple. So some keys are easier to play, and sound better, than other keys for the flute. My limited experience is that if the composer was a flutist, the music and fingerings are easier, and the flute sounds better. I'm not a violinist but I'm pretty sure certain keys are better for the violin. And many singers will find certain keys suit their voices better than other keys. A song without chord changes, or essentially changes in key, would tend to be uninteresting for the listener. One of Schubert's qualities is the wonderful constant changing of chords or keys. For example, get a load of the different chords, reflecting different keys, with the same repeated note in this small sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQwVVH9YbcI

I find just about anything by Schubert puts me in a good mood when erging.

I'm sure plenty of people here could give you a better answer. I think you have asked a very interesting question.

Byron

[philrow]

Oh gee guys, I've got a lot to respond to here. :-p

Roy:
As has been mentioned here, "D minor" is a key in which a piece is based. That means the the inherent structure of a piece follows a certain chordal progression (sometimes), and speaks to the intervals between notes. In D minor, there is one flat, which is a B flat. Confusing, perhaps, that the key with the B flat is called D minor, rather than B flat minor or major or whatever, you know. We musicians like to be confusing, often for the sake of being confusing. :-p

The key of a piece does indeed speak to the "mood" of the piece. As a general rule, "major" keys are described as more upbeat and jovial, whereas the "minor" keys are more serious, serene, and melancholy. In my experience, pieces in B major are trash :-p Well, I just don't usually care for that key. In terms of major keys, A, D, G, and C major are my favorites. For minor keys, I really like E and D minor. This may speak to a concept that Byron mentioned. I play violin. In terms of fingerings, those keys are, in my opinion, much easier to finger. Hence, with better fingerings, violinists get better intonation, and therefore I may consider an in-tune A major piece to be "better sounding," with its three sharps, than a piece in D# minor played out of tune, with its extremely formidable six sharps. A key signature with six sharps basically is asking one to take notes (like in a lecture) in English given by a professor in German -- it's certainly possible with a great deal of familiarity, but it can be one major task to immediately "translate."

Don't let the whole "major," "minor" thing throw you off. It has nothing to do with the pieces' significance.

Opus 13 refers to a catalog of a composer's work. As David pointed out, it typically refers to the actual order of publication of a work. I have a funny story about those symphonies. Dvořák worked with various publishers over his career. My standard practice when I get a piece to work on in orchestra is to get a good recording and listen to it extensively. So in the fall of last year, we the orchestra got the Dvořák 8th symphony music to sightread and eventually perform. So I went home and bought a recording of the symphony online. Unfortunately, we were using an older edition from way back towards the turn of the last century. At that point, the publisher deemed Dvořák's 8th symphony as the 4th, because that's how many symphonies Dvořák published with that specific company. So, I accidentally discovered the 4th symphony, and I absolutely love it.

"From the New World" is simply a title given to the symphony. On occasion, or even by regular practice, pieces can be "nicknamed." I believe Dvořák had recently emigrated from some Czech territory over to America when he wrote the 9th symphony. There is disagreement on the issue, but supposedly he derived basic melodic and harmonic structure in especially the last three movements of the piece from the "essence" of the "New World." He considered that to be African-American spirituals and Native American music, supposedly. Whatever the case may be, it is absolutely glorious and beautiful music. I've had the opportunity to play 9th symphony with both the Erie Philharmonic and a state orchestra festival -- imagine, if you get a chance to listen, being engulfed by an orchestra of over 150 musicians, in the 4th movement of the 9th. It was so miraculously energetic!!

In any case, pieces do sometimes have meaningful titles like that. Haydn was apparently a big fan of assigning names to his symphonies, and Mozart did it on occasion, as do many composers.

I'm sure that Bob Dylan takes at least some influence from the great composers of the last few centuries. That might explain why his music is so great, too :-p .

Roy and yankeerunner, don't hesitate to ask questions like that! I'm actually thrilled that anybody gives a damn about such music! In fact, keep asking questions about other stuff too. It's healthy.

Byron:
I'm actually a fan of the Mozart piano and violin sonatas. Hilary Hahn and Natalie Zhu produced some impeccable recordings of some of them. In fact, I also thoroughly enjoy some of Mozart's concerti (bassoon, horn, and violin, especially) and serenades, although not so much his symphonies. I'm also a huge fan of Rachmaninoff. Yet, I feel that largely, the music of both great composers still remains "trite." That is, I feel it is overly repetitive, largely unoriginal, and generally just not that exciting. Of course, such sentiments on music rely heavily on just personal opinion. Even music I, in my great qualification as a prolific composer and international musician superstar... or something... deem as "trite," I usually still do enjoy. I just don't think that Mozart's music was, in context, very extraordinary. I would hardly describe it as "sublime." In fact, I'd say quite the opposite. In an unjust oversimplification, a large consideration with Classical era music was to produce a great deal of highly-structure music. That is, music in rondo or sonata allegro form, most typically. In terms of Classical era composers, I have a pretty decent view of things given my exposure thus far: Haydn defined the Classical era, Beethoven ingeniously expanded music out of that era, and Mozart just worked within the framework provided for him. Excuse the oversimplification -- there are so many, many many many many great composers that did so much to define music in that era and evolve out of it. I say that not to devalue Mozart's music -- I enjoy it. That's why his music is so popular today -- he found what is inherently pleasing, and exploited it, writing hundreds of pieces that are, given developmental changes, subject to the same concept of what music is. So, he's prolific and popular now. I just feel that, for example, Beethoven's string quartets, even Haydn's quartets, surpass Mozart's in any number of ways. I could write a whole paper on such topics -- in fact I have... which was pretty intense... but of course I usually don't have any idea what I'm doing or saying, so I wouldn't pay much attention to me anyway. :-p

You know, as I'm writing this, I'm listening to the Mozart piano and violin sonata in G, K.301. Trite, but pleasing. Oh, there's another note: some "special" composers have their own catalog of works. Mozart, for example, doesn't have works categorized as "opus," but rather as "Köchel," or "K." Bach is BWV, f.y.i.

Schubert -- ew, nasty. Just kidding! :-p It's almost cliche, at least for voice people, but I love Schubert's Erlkönig, D. 328, Op.1: Wer reitet so spät! Get it! Listen to it! Love it!!! It's definitely intense, and workout-worthy. Go! What are you waiting for!?

Please, I welcome any other inquiry, even if I may not be able to answer it. I love music, and any discussion on it is valuable!

Phil

[gregory.cook]

The other day I listened to Dvořák's "From the New World" while erging. I always thought the second movement would be too quiet but it was only the beginning of the first movement that was difficult to hear. I think that the biggest problem with listening to classical music while erging is that classical composers use volume to enhance the effect of the music.

I just don't think that Mozart's music was, in context, very extraordinary. I would hardly describe it as "sublime."

I've never been moved by Mozart. The only piece that I ever really enjoyed (other than the Rondo Alla Turca) was a piano sonata on a recording by Vladimir Horowitz, but Horowitz played it as if it had been written by a romantic composer.

I just feel that, for example, Beethoven's string quartets, even Haydn's quartets, surpass Mozart's in any number of ways.

I'm not familiar with Haydn's quartets, but I know Beethoven's string quartets pretty well. I think that the three opus 59 quartets, opus 71, and opus 95 are among the most amazing things I've ever heard. Usually when I talk to people about them I describe them as "groovy" but that doesn't seem to have meaning to anyone except me. The second movement of 59 #3 is cool beyond description.

Beethoven ingeniously expanded music out of that era

Parts of Beethoven's last piano sonata (opus 111, I think), sound like it could have been written in the "swing" era of the 1920s.

(In advance, I concede every argument to Phil.)

[philrow]

Ah yes, the first measures of the 9th. There's some really neat meter and syncopation there. That is interesting that you could hear the 2nd movement just fine. But really, listening to the piece, especially when the music is happening around oneself, the second movement isn't necessarily that "quiet." I mean it's obviously not blaring. The lower strings and registers basically provide for an ambient over which the melody of different woodwinds soars. Unfortunately, that bass stuff tends to get blocked out with the noise of erging and the oft-lacking bass in the stereos sometimes available in the gym -- I know my little portable stereo has difficulty enough playing out the treble! With Dvořák, my absolute favorite aspect of his symphonies is the bass, especially in the strings. I've never, ever come across Dvořák not utilizing the lower registers to ecstatic and truly sublime ends.

Of course, I agree with the general variation in dynamics being of huge significance. Use of dynamics varies between era, let alone composers. That is largely why, if I choose to listen to such music during more intense rows, I usually listen to Baroque, with its terraced dynamics -- pianissimo, FORTISSIMO, pianissimo, FORTISSISSISSIMO! etc, whereas I'll occasionally listen to more Romantic pieces, which are more interesting for those long, otherwise somewhat boring rows.

I'm not particularly sure yet what I think about musicians Romanticizing music. I mean, for shear entertainment, it is often superb in comparison to period performances -- although, such performances are often very entertaining. I recently bought a CD of the Handel violin and harpsichord sonatas by Andrew Manze and Richard Egarr played in period style and on period instruments -- incredible, unequivocally beautiful! Horowitz was an incredible pianist, and certainly a very Romantic musician. I personally feel more satiated when I play, for example, a Bach concerto, sonata, or other Baroque piece, in very much a strict Baroque style.

The closest I've been to being "moved" by Mozart is in some of his cadenzas, especially in the violin concerti, and occasionally in various chamber works.

The Haydn quartets must be understood for what they are -- the beginning of a genre. I feel Haydn both created and mastered the technique of the string quartet, which facilitated others to simply mold creativity with that established technique. They aren't necessarily anything to write home about, but they're just delicious, great for getting me working into the late night and beyond.

I believe those that you mentioned are middle-period string quartets? I haven't studied them as much as I should. But, of the late quartets, Op. 131, No. 14, is just debilitatingly gorgeous. I actually can't even listen to it very often. I certainly can't imagine trying to erg to it...!! In my mind, it transcends the concept of the musical era, and is nothing but music; pure, yet influenced by Beethoven's practically unimaginable convolution.

It's great to hear of your applied interest in this music, Greg!

Phil