Ravi Shankar

lastnofm skrev:

how can i download these songs..plz write on ma profile.thnks

Hojta till lastnofm

Planeta_Lassu skrev:

OM ♪♪♪ OM ♪♪♪

Hojta till Planeta_Lassu

Leptossomico skrev:

░░░░█░░░░░█████░██████░░█████░██░░░█░█████░░░░░ ░░░░█░░░░░█░░░░░█░░░░░░░█░░░░░█░█░░█░█░░░░█░░░░ ░░░░█░░░░░█████░█░░███░░█████░█░░█░█░█░░░░█░░░░ ░░░░█░░░░░█░░░░░█░░░░█░░█░░░░░█░░░██░█░░░░█░░░░ ░░░░█████░█████░██████░░█████░█░░░░█░█████░░░░░

Hojta till Leptossomico

MoogleZilla skrev:

@ut0 - You don't have to "seek approval," but if you ever want to actually understand the music and its implications, you'd quit being such a knob.

Hojta till MoogleZilla

Who_Scared_You skrev:

ravi shanker all day long

Hojta till Who_Scared_You

ViniciusStilt skrev:

I love the indian melodies...

Hojta till ViniciusStilt

ut0 skrev:

"You know Ravi himself is very much against drug use relating to this music." good thing I don't seek the approval of musicians I respect with regard to my personal habits, or else I might care.

Hojta till ut0

MoogleZilla skrev:

Well, not necessarily for the first point. I mean that "high culture" would be the apex of said culture, while "national culture" would probably be along the lines of traditionalism and (more often than not) historical beliefs and messages. In other words, "high culture" would be the pinnacle of their respective cultural message (such as in the example of Schubert), while sea shanties would be a more rudimentary understanding and more personal expression of some cultural ideal or concept. Maybe not a "social message" as much as one of cultural pertinence an "traditionalism" or a historical event or something. Like you said, it relates back to historical outreaches. And I would agree on the Hindustani Classical point, but I'm more than positive that there was some precursor to it that would have been rudimentary and less structured than their "high art", so to speak.

Hojta till MoogleZilla

fat_fleshy_fingers skrev:

there is no "high culture music" that is not related to its "national culture". all cultural expressions grow out of systems of meaning. schubert is just as "cultural" as sea shanties. i don't think that communicating a "social message" is what defines folk either. i think you're closer to a truth that i would accept with the "traditional" tag because it emphasises the conscious historical outreach that characterises traditional music. on the other hand, hindustani classical reaches back a couple centuries, doesn't it?

Hojta till fat_fleshy_fingers

MoogleZilla skrev:

Well, yes, Ravi Shankar is (as I already stated) a Classical artist because he follows in line with the High Classical of Indian tradition. But groups that play "world music" do indeed play "folk/world music" because of its social message that is related to national culture. Perhaps "traditional music" is a better term though...Regardless, my point stands that music is best divided into these groupings. Art Music (classical) for its intents of formality and a transmission of an artistic message, Popular Music for its intents to transmit a message that is both accessible and relatable to all people, and "Traditional" Music a message of cultural significance or traditional/historical events and/or lifestyles. I know the original term "world music" was a sack of shit because it literally contained all non-American/European musics, but I think my term stands up fairly well. I'm not attempting to define anything else but what is before me.

Hojta till MoogleZilla

fat_fleshy_fingers skrev:

you're trying to find a definition for something else entirely. i'm not suggesting a name for "anything that conveys some sort of social message" or wherein "something cultural rests". literally all music should be included then, otherwise it would not be music. i think "world music" originally stood for music, that was "from the rest of the world" without paying attention to its respective musical attributes or cultural entanglements. to assume that every culture has its "folk music" which is supposed to have the same status in its respective culture that folk has in europe (for example) would be a gross underestimation of the complexity and alterity of societies in the world. ravi shankar might be "high culture" in the context of south asian music, to the european listener it is, phenomenologically, simply unusual.

Hojta till fat_fleshy_fingers

MoogleZilla skrev:

And it's not "racist", but rather sort of naive.

Hojta till MoogleZilla

MoogleZilla skrev:

Err, yeah. That's why I fucking suggest "Folk/World" which would not only encompass "non-western" and "alien" music, but also American Folk, to some extent Blues, early Country (not that Nashville bullshit), and Native American musics as well. Anything that conveys some sort of social message inherent in the music itself. Something cultural rests in it.

Hojta till MoogleZilla

fat_fleshy_fingers skrev:

the term world music does have a certain racist undertone to it; on the other hand, what's a good word for music that seems foreign/alien to western audiences because it's embedded in cultures which aren't their own? non-western music? seems pretty vague also. best case scenario is still everyone just learning their shit and distinguishing hindustani from arab music or whatever.

Hojta till fat_fleshy_fingers

MoogleZilla skrev:

For real

Hojta till MoogleZilla

Akayz7 skrev:

World Music is viable, because it doesn't only include a countries culture it includes many. French Rock is not World Music. But Traditional Greek Folk is.

Hojta till Akayz7

Akayz7 skrev:

spinnyoza you are retarded. Music doesn't break down into just 4 genres. You said "Art", "Pop", "World" and "Progressive" some of the most vague terms ever to be used in music.

Hojta till Akayz7

ass_ skrev:

Ustad Vilayat Khan is a better sitar Maestro. The Beatles suck. Ravi is a beastly innovator and musician, but anyone who diggs Ravi Shankar and Hindustani classical music in general should check out Nikhil Banerjee aka his peer and fellow student.

Hojta till ass_