Intense hatred of all that is not classical:

Mdlle. Nancy said:

http://nomuzak.co.uk/against_pop.html

I turned up this illogical rant while researching for an essay...we needed a counterpoint to our arguments. It seemed to me that they didn't look very far while finding examples of popular music to hate.

Basically they're arguing that all music that is not classical is shallow, simple, and mindless. Now I'm all for classical music. But come on. Sheltered.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember a very good song by The Association called Requiem for the Masses. I found it thought-provoking and quite well-written.

Also, I thought some of the 70's and 80's Rock was pretty interesting and thought-provoking as well. Pink Floyd's Another Brick In The Wall, which, if I understand correctly, referred to the Berlin Wall, had some very good points and brought the message of just how bad the children in East Berlin had things to a lot of people.

As for anything not classical being shallow, simple, and mindless, what does this do to bands like Walter Murphy and the Big Apple Band? Their A Fifth of Beethoven inspired a lot of young people -- myself included -- to even look up the original sounds and appreciate them all the more.

No, I rather doubt anything not classical is -- dare I say it? -- stupid. Rather, it's what gets the young people of each generation thinking ... just like the classical music did when its writers first penned their great songs.

They have many valid points. I can't argue with most of it.

Actually, there's one point I don't agree with. Repetition in itself isn't a bad thing, and there are classical composers who use it. And repetition is a mainstay of post-rock, and that's some of the most unique and imaginative music I've heard in years.

But when every guitarist jumps to tell people about their "influences", almost to the exclusion of their own music, I think there's a problem. Pop is just lazy music, boring, and unimaginative. It doesn't mean there's no place for it, but I think it's incredibly sad that it's basically all people can relate to these days.

RG570 said:

Snipped...

Pop is just lazy music, boring, and unimaginative. ...Snipped.

Click to expand...

Well, you have the right to your opinion.

And that's all the above quoted statement is: opinion. I just wish more people would understand that just because they think a certain way, does not make their way of thinking the standard by which everything else is measured.

You have to remember, too, that at one time, what we call 'classical music' was Pop. There was a time when all the young people listened to it, and only the old farts of society didn't get it.

The music may be different now, but it has much the same attitude it did hundreds of years ago. What's popular with the young people is not often popular with their parents. This happens with every generation. You can say the music is bad, or like my parents used to say, that it is 'noise, not music'. But the truth is, it is music and it is just as valid a form of art as anything classical. Some people will like it, and others will protest its very existence, just like with any form of art.

Sean D. Schaffer said:

Well, you have the right to your opinion.

And that's all the above quoted statement is: opinion. I just wish more people would understand that just because they think a certain way, does not make their way of thinking the standard by which everything else is measured.

You have to remember, too, that at one time, what we call 'classical music' was Pop. There was a time when all the young people listened to it, and only the old farts of society didn't get it.

The music may be different now, but it has much the same attitude it did hundreds of years ago. What's popular with the young people is not often popular with their parents. This happens with every generation. You can say the music is bad, or like my parents used to say, that it is 'noise, not music'. But the truth is, it is music and it is just as valid a form of art as anything classical. Some people will like it, and others will protest its very existence, just like with any form of art.

Click to expand...

Just remember: the waltz was scandalous when it was first performed. People actually had to touch each other to dance!

RG570 said:

They have many valid points. I can't argue with most of it.

Actually, there's one point I don't agree with. Repetition in itself isn't a bad thing, and there are classical composers who use it. And repetition is a mainstay of post-rock, and that's some of the most unique and imaginative music I've heard in years.

But when every guitarist jumps to tell people about their "influences", almost to the exclusion of their own music, I think there's a problem. Pop is just lazy music, boring, and unimaginative. It doesn't mean there's no place for it, but I think it's incredibly sad that it's basically all people can relate to these days.

Click to expand...

Such as Ravel with his Bolero, leading many scholars to theorise that he may have had Pick's Disease.

Sean D. Schaffer said:

Well, you have the right to your opinion.

And that's all the above quoted statement is: opinion. I just wish more people would understand that just because they think a certain way, does not make their way of thinking the standard by which everything else is measured.

You have to remember, too, that at one time, what we call 'classical music' was Pop. There was a time when all the young people listened to it, and only the old farts of society didn't get it.

The music may be different now, but it has much the same attitude it did hundreds of years ago. What's popular with the young people is not often popular with their parents. This happens with every generation. You can say the music is bad, or like my parents used to say, that it is 'noise, not music'. But the truth is, it is music and it is just as valid a form of art as anything classical. Some people will like it, and others will protest its very existence, just like with any form of art.

Click to expand...

It's not that it's popular that makes it crap. It's that it's crap that makes it crap. It's that legitimate artists are starving while you can make millions of dollars by copying four power chords and rudimentary pentatonic phrasing from a million other people.

We're convinced that something is good solely on its popularity, but this popularity is the result of marketing and comfort and not innovation.

I don't know how anyone can compare pop with classical music simply because at one time classical was popular. It simply does not follow. The Pussycat Dolls are not today's version of Bartok. No. Absolutely not. This is not a continuation of culture, but a destruction of it; a bastardization brought on by late capitalism and technology.

Nowhere do I say that it's wrong to listen to crap. Kitsch is a fact of life, something nobody can escape. But when symphonies have to scrape by on donation and art is looked down upon, while pop-factories churn out "art" that is indistinguishable from last year's "art", there is a big problem.

But yes, this is just my opinion, and in this postmodern hell, that's all anything is because there is no higher standard other than dollar signs and comfort.

RG570 said:

But yes, this is just my opinion, and in this postmodern hell, that's all anything is because there is no higher standard other than dollar signs and comfort.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the reason your thoughts are only opinion. Your thoughts are only opinion because they're not provable as fact. You cannot expect people to believe 'this is crap' or 'we live in a postmodern hell' to be provable. Higher standards are not what make something legitimate or illegitimate. What makes an art form legitimate is the fact that it is an art form. Nothing more.

The fact is, whether this world is a postmodern hell you still have to live in it the way it is, and allow other people to enjoy what they want to enjoy. If that pisses you off, that still does not make your opinion any more valid than mine. The reason is simple: an opinion is not provable fact.


ETA:

Fact: My name is Sean.

Opinion: This world is a postmodern hell.

Fact can be proven, while opinion is merely a subjective belief.

There is an aspect to making music that is purely fun. The making of music serves a purpose for people that is not necessarily art, and nor should it be. It is energy harnessed and expressed for a multitude of reasons, as many reasons as people have to listen to it. Culture has always been made up of both the "high" and the "low." Folk music has always been exchanged between peers, and I see no reason for that to stop now.

I get a shiver down my spine from listening to the transition from "Babelogue" to "Rock n' Roll N-word" by Patti Smith, just as surely as I do from listening to Bach's Cello Suites played by Pablo Casals.

But talking about music is complex because it is actually another language, and talking about it requires that we use this language, which is inadequate for the purposes.

Yay I'm not the most verbose person in the world! Everybody dance .

Seriously:

It all comes from the same place...

Fact or opinion?

Discuss...

Nolita said:

It all comes from the same place...

Fact or opinion?

Discuss...

Click to expand...

Opinion, in my opinion. When I play guitar it comes from a different place than when I play saxophone. It's not that it's just a different type of music, but the motivations are very different.

Classical music is for showing off one's technical skills both in writing it and in playing it, Popular music is for enjoyment that all can participate in, and there's nothing new about the dichotomy. It's been that way since music began. And, for most of us, the two forms do not compete with, but actually complement, one another as each offers something the other does not.

Moreover, don't forget that Popular Song adds a Lyrical element that is integral to it's appeal, and that Classical music, for the most part, (except when tied to opera - which features Voices treated as instruments) does not.

If technical skill is what gives you pleasure, by all means go Classical. If you prefer raw energy and meaningful Lyrics (that you can sing along with and dance to as well - and thus become part of the process) go Pop in any of it's forms.

I tend to enjoy both, depending on my mood, but that's just me.

JRH

yesandno said:

Opinion, in my opinion. When I play guitar it comes from a different place than when I play saxophone. It's not that it's just a different type of music, but the motivations are very different.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I used to play a couple instruments, and I find I use a different self when playing the drums than I do when playing (hurting people's ears on?) guitar or bass. The music can be identical, but the instruments themselves lend to different feelings within my soul.

For instance, the drums are more of a body instrument, because they use beats to get their points across. OTOH, the guitar is more a heart instrument (heart being the soul, in this case). A guitar in the same song can make beautiful melodies that the drums simply cannot make. I think it's really a matter of the nature of the instrument.

So yes, I agree with Yesandno. That all music comes from the same place would have to be an opinion and not a fact. Although the same soul that rules over all the different places in the human entity might think it controls those places, the parts of the human entity have a tendency to act independently of one another, especially in music.

Oh I meant genres. They all come from the same place. If we really all come from Africa, then it stands to reason, the very root of music is in Africa. Was musing really.

Here's something interesting. The guitar lessons I'm taking, well the guy who put the whole thing together, and is a classically trained guitarist/instructor; says the Blues shouldn't work. Because it goes against music theory. But somehow it does work.

He's not saying it doesn't work, he seems to like just about every genre. Just that it shouldn't work. Which I think is fascinating. But then we get into science and how people confuse theory with law.

Anyway, I was just musing. How we're all supposed to come from Africa. So very long ago. And that music's just a part of all of us. Even those of us who don't consider ourselves to be musical, well, we feel music, enjoy it, etc... What if that's no stranger than all the other things humans as a whole share, on a genetic level?

I enjoy teasing "classical" snobs, but I'll restrict myself to the simple facts.

Few can define "classical music" with any ability. If they're especially bright, they'll revise it to something like "orchestral... except not jazz."

They tend to use ghastly oxymorons like "modern classical" with no flicker of irony.

They seem unaware of how many great "classical" themes were lifted directly from pop tunes of the era.

They claim pop tunes of the 14th & 15th centuries as "classical"... but turn up their noses at the same music played by people like me on guitar & mandolin & recorder because it's only "legitimate" when played on shawm & sackbutt & kurtal & lute -- or on highly inappropriate instruments like pianoforte & cello.

Nolita,

The root of ALL music, (popular or classical) is rythem, (percussion) and if the biologists are correct about Africa being the birthplace of humanity, it follows that music would have begun there, but what does that have to do with ANY form of MODERN music, (which is generally recognized as beginning in the 12th and 13th century with the beginnings of music theory).

The first, and simplist, instruments were undoubtedly used in folk, (popular) music as background for a "minstrel's" tales or in church as background for (hymns) but the instruments that Anthony mentioned, (while being part of the Folk tradition) were never accepted as "Orchestral"

In point of fact, Orchestral music was designed to examine the limits of what sounds could be produced by instruments of various timbres and ranges playing together.

Orchestral instruments are generally considered as the following:

The typical symphony orchestra consists of four proportionate groups of similar musical instruments, generally appearing in the musical score in the following order (with proportions indicated):
Woodwinds: piccolo, 2 flutes*, 2 oboes*, English horn, 2 clarinets*, bass clarinet, 2 bassoons*, contrabassoon
Brass: 2* to 8 French horns*, 2* to 5 trumpets*, 2 to 3 trombones, 1 to 2 bass trombones, tuba
Percussion: timpani*, snare drum, bass drum, cymbals, triangle, celesta, etc.
Strings: harp(s), 16 to 30 violins*, 8 to 12 violas*, 8 to 12 violoncellos*, and 5 to 8 double basses*.

Occasionally, an orchestra will feature notable wind ensemble instruments, such as the euphonium, the saxophone, the alto clarinet, and the baritone horn.

Instruments marked with an asterisk are considered the "core" symphonic instruments, and only in rarest of cases are not called for in most symphonic literature. Other instruments listed above are considered "auxiliary" instruments and are less frequently required, but still referred to as "standard". Late 19th century symphonic works calling for all the auxiliary instruments, as well as a large number of strings, usually include the phrase "for large orchestra" in their full titles. Example: Richard Strauss' Ein Heldenlebe.

The so-called "standard complement" of 'double winds and brass' in the orchestra from the first half of the 19th century is generally attributed to the forces called for by Beethoven. With the exception of his Fourth Symphony and Violin Concerto (which specify the singular Flauto)

Additional instruments are not considered standard but are scored occasionally. Examples of these instruments include the saxophone, bass oboe, heckelphone, flugelhorn, cornet, euphonium, glass harmonica, harpsichord, Wagner tuba, accordion, theremin, ondes martenot, mandolin, guitar, sitar, organ, and harmonium.

******

The Folk and Classical traditions of Music have about as much in common as Song Lyrics have with Poetry and for the same reasons. The first is meant for Popular consumption, while the latter is intended to examine and push the limits of what can be expressed within the form.

Each has it's own purpose and value in it's own right, and direct comparisons are therefore meaningless as it's much like comparing apples and oranges.

Think about it.

JRH

To claim that "classical music pushes the boundaries of human experience" is not unlike claiming that the guy who formulate McDonalds shakes is, being a scientist, significantly expanding the aggregate experience of the human race.

In short: goofy.

Bach wrote church music. For money. And court music. For money. And let's not forget the music lessons.

Mozart wrote for money.

Vivaldi wrote for money -- & if I ever hear another "soulful" rendition of that godawful mandolin-plinking mess he foisted on the world I will projectile-heave.

And, FWIW, poetry & lyrics have plenty in common -- which doesn't mean they're interexchangeable, the error grasped at by more than a few beginners. They both still require a basic love of language & some sense of rhythm & tone.

From our long remove, most modern people wouldn't see much difference between a courtly dance & a peasant dance-tune -- played on the same instrumentation, it all sounds similar to our Elvis-damaged ears.

Hm. Maybe that's it: music snobs of whatever stripe are limited by artificial constraints beyond which they actively refuse to see. Are Beatles tunes "classical" when played by the Boston Pops? Is Bach "classical" when played by John Williams on a nylon-string guitar, but "not-classical" when played by John Williams on an electric guitar? Does Beethoven cease to be "classical" when a drum-track is appended to an authoritative recording? or when it's played by a Goodmanesque jazz orchestra?

Anthony Ravenscroft said:

Snipped...

And, FWIW, poetry & lyrics have plenty in common -- which doesn't mean they're interexchangeable, the error grasped at by more than a few beginners. They both still require a basic love of language & some sense of rhythm & tone.

...Snipped.

Click to expand...

I noticed that once, when I tried to use a song I had written in my younger years as poetry at the Poetry section of AW. To me, as a beginner, it made sense that poetry and lyrics were one-and-the-same. But to those who knew poetry very well, they could see the subtle differences and were very ready and willing to explain to me those differences.

This is a lesson I am glad I learned.

JRH said:

*snip*

I tend to enjoy both, depending on my mood, but that's just me.

JRH

Click to expand...

I enjoy all kinds of music. I can't see cutting myself off from anything. My two favourite bands are The Beatles and Genesis. I wonder what those in that article make of bands like Genesis? Some of their stuff, like Firth of Fifth and Cinema Show from the album Selling England by the Pound, is as musically intricate and evolved as any classical piece. I often refer to them as the closest thing to a classical orchestra rock music has ever produced.

Heck, I'll go from listening to Alison Krauss and Union Station to Queen to Van Halen and love them all. Music is one of life's great joys, like ice cream. Why restrict yourself to only one flavour?

Hey Chunky you left out Josh Groban. His latest track's about as operatic as a pop song can be.

Ah but then is Opera classical? But if it is, then is Light Opera less than?

Oh hell I like what I like. I also like those paintings of dogs playing poker. Haha the bulldog's cheating. Wait what was the question again?

LOL!

You touch on the key point there. Like Sheryl Crow sings, "If it makes you happy...."

The real fallacy of the article is that it compares the best of "classical" music with the worst of "pop" music. There is very, very good popular music and very, very bad classical music. Problem is, most of the very bad classical music has faded into obscurity, leaving only the best. This is an unfair comparison.

In addition, people listen to music for different reasons. I love classical music, but I've discovered that the closer it comes to the 20th century, the less I like it. The reason is that I love patterns. I see patterns everywhere and 17th and 18th century music had very evolved patterns. So to me most of modern music is less interesting. This is particularly true of most Rock (with the simple four count beat) as well as "modern classical" (much of which is just squeaks and groans to me).

That's not to say that I don't like anything modern. There are examples of music in almost every genre that I like, mostly because of the patterns in the music. Emerson, Lake, and Palmer did some tremendous remakes of classical pieces. And I think Chip Davis of Mannheim Steamroller is writing music the way Mozart would if he were alive today.

But all this is because I like music for a particular reason. This reason is not superior to anyone else's reasons for listening to music and to make universal pronouncements about any art form is just stupid.