trumpet blower88

I'm reorganizing my iTunes music library and I want to do it the right way, with all the litle catagories of each song filled. I'm working on my collection of Aaron Coplands music and can't figure out what Genre fits best for him.

Would 20th Century work best, or just "classical"? I know it's not in the classical period, but his pieces also don't sound very "20th century".

I'm just not sure what to lable these cds! Any ideas?

Tootsall

I've got Copland under "General Classical" for the "Genre". When I pushed the tunes into the Zen Touch I then included them in a different category set "Playlists" as "Easy Listening". A lot of the Copland stuff I have was recorded by Tokyo Kosei so I also have it under "Wind Orchestra". He shares those locations with "Afred Reed" & other composers of "Light Classical" and/or "Wind Orchestra" music.

Edit/clarification: Before anyone jumps, I know that Copland did not write for "Wind Orchestra".... Rodeo being a prime example. It's just that that's the type of one of the groups that I have it being performed by.

tpter1

There are several answers to this:

1.
As I grow older, a few things come to my attention, this being one of them: it's all music. Genres have little to do with anything other than classification systems so we can all understand what to expect from a certain piece of music. We won't, for example, expect a string section and huge brass section on a Rush album...just 3 guys. We expect certain sounds, certain types of playing. If I say fusion, you have this expectation. Buy tickets to hear the Minnesota Symphony, you expect certain types of playing. You may even expect to play a certain way when you go to concert band, jazz band, pep band, or marching band or orchestra. But the lines blur more frequently. Music is an art which plays on our expectations...that's how it works. Improvisation, flutter tonguing, swinging...what am I talking about? Well, it could be Wynton. But it could also be a Gershwin piece, or a show book. Or it could be a Blood Sweat and Tears tune. Or it could be some eastern group. Or it could be a Tichelli piece for wind ensemble. Genres help us lump different sound styles together into nice, neat little categories, based on what we expect. One problem, though: music is not nice, neat little categories. Where would you put the San Francisco Symphony doing Metallica? (The trash can is not an option, sorry!) (I came to this realization as a big slap in the face when I was teaching classroom music and had the kids do a record-store type project where they had to classify different types of music. I never did the project again, because it seemed to be wrecking music for the kids).

2. Classical music.

3. Orchestral music.

4. Great music.

Sorry if I got a bit esoteric...

5. 20th century orchestral music.

trumpet blower88

Thanks you guys, I think I'm going to go with "orchestral music" unless anything else pops into my head.

And for the Sanfrancisco Symphony playing Metalica, I would put that into the "pops" catagory along with my recording of the London Symphony playing Pink Flloyds' Dark Side of the Moon...

Tootsall

I have always been partial to the LSO with Deep Purple at the Royal Albert Hall. It was the first LP that I can remember turning me on to the possibilities of using an orchestra for "pop" or at least "non-classical" music.

stewmuse

if you think Copland dosn't sound "twentieth century," then you're missing two key components.

1. Not all 20th century, or even most of it, really, is atonal or "bleep-bloop-bang-klunk"

2. You need to check out a lot more Copland, such as:
Piano Variations (also done as Orchestral Variations)
Connotations
Inscapes
Emblems
Symphonic Ode

wiseone2

Aaron Copland was one funny guy and a good conductor of his own music.
Copland conducted his works at concerts all over the world, often providing live program notes.

When he conducted the Baltimore Symphony in a program of his music which included "Connotations for Orchestra" he gave this description.
The work was written for the opening of Philharmonic Hall in Lincoln Center.
He said that he had received a letter from a fan speaking about the work,"Connotations," that he had just heard on the radio.
"Mr. Copland, I have been a long time fan of your music. Last night I heard your new work, "Connotations"..............Shame........Shame.... ...Shame"
Copland could have done stand-up
Wilmer

Rimshot

Obviously, that was a "fan" who only knew part of his idol's overall output. (But then, using the full-fledged word, that's usually the problem with "fanatics", isn't it? )

Manny Laureano

So, then here's a question:

The lesser known works of Copland are a bit different than the works everybody knows just about by heart. Are they lesser known because they are not consistent with the musical language he's known for or is it that they're just not terribly interesting to listen to?

What composers do you listen to that manage to hold your interest from piece to piece? Tchaikovsky seems very consistent to me but some will accuse himof being unintellectually challenging. I don't hold that view.

Anyway... what do you think? We have a lot of musicology types on the site like Jimi, Alex, JJ... I know there are several others.

ML

Clarino

Beethoven, Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Dvorak, . You know, the greats. I guess I'm not one of the sites most expert musicologists, but those are the composers that strike me as being consistently successfull with regard to stimulating my musical interest. There are others of course (Elgar and Holst, to name but two), but those four spring to mind immediately.