Pop vs. Classical Music

[eduardo_b]

Even a "simple" Haydn work is more complex than any pop song...

Classical is to calculus as arithmetic is to pop. One's not better than the other, simply more complex.

But is complexity a measure of aesthetic quality. I think not. To paraphrase myself from an infamous thread, complexity is overrated.

[bugs]

I think that the main differences between "popular" and "classical" music is that the classical variety is generally more materially sophisticated and assumes, even demands, a more sophisticated background and attitude of the listener. "Pop" music, on the other hand, employs generally simple material and demands virtually nothing of the listener including attention span.

[Prevalence]

Pop music has a fairly constant Kick and Snare, classical does not.

Just one of many differences

[duncanparsons]

absolutely - one of my favourite 'classical' works is 'The Entrance of the Montagues and Capulets' from Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. Fabulous piece. I wish it was longer. Britney's latest is probably more complicated, but a lot less interesting. Like I said,

There are those who have and do use those conventions to great effect, there are fantastic examples of breaking the conventions, there are appalling artefacts of both that have been not just published but promoted into the public consciousness. This is not being genre specific, just music specific.

It's an aesthetic, and that, at the end of the day, is deeply personal.

DSP

[vurt]

I think that the main differences between "popular" and "classical" music is that the classical variety is generally more materially sophisticated and assumes, even demands, a more sophisticated background and attitude of the listener.

or at least thats what the tuxedod fucknuts who attend the orchestras and recitals would like you to believe.
theres nothing i like better than the looks on their faces when a bunch of people turn up in casual clothes, with dreadlocks even and i dont mean to alarm you beatrice, but theres a black man here...

musical snobbery at its finest

[duncanparsons]

What of the 'Popular Classics' - should that not be an oxymoron?

[duncanparsons]

Pop music has a fairly constant Kick and Snare, classical does not.

Just one of many differences

I take it you weren't around for Louis Clarke's output in the early 80s then..

[lilith2k3]

Todays classic is yesterdays pop. Johann Strauss is maybe a good example: he wrote in his time pop(ular) music, which is nowadays refered to as classic.

[eduardo_b]

I think that the main differences between "popular" and "classical" music is that the classical variety is generally more materially sophisticated and assumes, even demands, a more sophisticated background and attitude of the listener.

or at least thats what the tuxedod fucknuts who attend the orchestras and recitals would like you to believe.
theres nothing i like better than the looks on their faces when a bunch of people turn up in casual clothes, with dreadlocks even and i dont mean to alarm you beatrice, but theres a black man here...

musical snobbery at its finest

[jancivil]

Classical is more complex than pop.

Pop is a simple derivative of what classical originated.

Oh, I don't know there is plenty of complex pop (Beatles come to mind immediately), and there is relatively simple (but good) classical music, like some of Haydn's work, etc.

Even a "simple" Haydn work is more complex than any pop song.

Most pop songs can be boiled down to a relatively simple variation of AABA structure-wise, the melody is always the lead vocal, there might be some simple vocal harmonies (2, maybe 3 part, almost always paralle/similar motion), and the harmonic structure consists of very conventional chord structures in block form. Bass lines always on the dominant.

On the other hand, even a "simple" classical piece will often outdo even those limited parameters mentioned above --

1) the song structure will be more than an AABA variation,
2) at a minimum the melody is in the lead voice, but more often than not is repeated elsewhere
3) there is at least a carefully constructed 3 part harmony that employs more than melody:vocal + harmony:block chord + bass:root
4) many, many chordal variations (and not just ii-IV7-I variety, but the open/closed and 6 or 3 in the root kind as well)
5) fully developed bass lines (6's and 3's, ostinatos, etc)

We could go on, but let's use another example: jazz vs pop. Jazz has many of pop's simplicities, but is also has many complexities of its own than certainly surpasses.

Classical is a learned, erudite, theoretical endeavor. For the scholar.
Pop is the masses good time, soaked up like learning a language. For the everyday man. Not to say that it's all bad, nor that all classical is inherently better, just that by definition one is simple, the other complex. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but it is the rule.

Film scores? most related to classical
Kiddy songs? most related to pop
National anthems and folk songs? most related to pop
Fully orchestrated anthems and folk songs? most related to classical

Classical is to calculus as arithmetic is to pop. One's not better than the other, simply more complex.

Even a mediocre R&B song is more rhythmically complex than any work by Haydn. Fully developed bass lines, in WHAT CONTEXT?! The harmonic practice period of the late 18th century throughout the 19th?

A really simple 'classical' tune does not necessarily exceed SONG FORM. Give examples.

I could go on for A WHILE pointing out your error to you, and in concrete examples by the dozen, but I'm tired of typing already.

Your post is pompous ("...for the scholar"), and misleading to the rest of the class.

[Max el Belga]

Pop makes the money and thanks to that classical can be heard too.

Max... .. .

[jancivil]

In the 'classical' historical period, composers did endeavor to do well, and have 'hits'. This meant cultivating favor politically, in order to get a position with the court, or maybe you had a choice gig with the church.
Money *chart action - with a bullte* is the new king.

These differences pointed out so far are pretty much bogus ones.
Back in the 'classical' day, the people with the money, or favors to bestow basically, were the highly educated aristocracy, with the attendant pretensions of their class. So, it was de rigeur to make the whole presentation seem 'more complex' than the music really was.

Today, people have the means to determine 'a hit' strictly by raw buying power, and tend to prefer a simpler expression of basically the same level of material.

(Note well, that my 'in scare quotes' definition of classical is limited to a general practice period and just barely even would overlap the 20th century. )

[eduardo_b]

Pop makes the money and thanks to that classical can be heard too.

Max... .. .

True, actually. Classical and jazz sales are such a small percentage of the market that these divisions may well lose money, and are subsidized by the popular music divisions.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I have been following this thread and reading everyone's helpful responses. At first the division between styles seems obvious, but when you try to identify what key differences are, then the exercise breaks down quickly. Is it complexity? Time period? Instrumentation? Forms?

None of these seem to clearly delineate the 'thing' that distinguishes "classical" (or art music) from pop music. Everything you point to can yield many many exceptions!

But perhaps one can gain clarity by looking at what is done WITH the music rather than what the music IS.

Pop music has an industry built up around it...a multi-billion dollar, multi-national mass-market industry containing product development, publishing, licensing, marketing, distribution, retail, etc.

This industry develops and/or chooses products that can easily be turned into mass-consumable commodities. Longer, complex, older musical works such as Mahler's Ninth Symphony obviously isn't going to easily lend itself to being a commodity.

The products that the industry tends to select are fresh, current, easily 'digestible' (assessable), shorter, etc. Not that all pop is simple, digestible and short and current.

But an industry has to take a look at each thing and ask, "how easy is this thing going to be to package, promote, distribute, and sell on as large of a scope as possible? How much money can we make for our investment? Can we get further products (and sales) out of this thing?"

The easier it is to make a commodity out of music, the more chance it has to BE a commodity.

Can Mozart or Tchaikovsky be a commodity? Sure, you may have to repackage it a bit...a little shorter, maybe a rhythm track, more repeats, maybe add lyrics, etc. But it's been done in the past many, many times in the past.

Art music has its own institutions both academic and professional and therefore its own questions and selection criteria for musical works. The questions are more along the lines of, "does this work possess high artistic merit, social significance, historical significance, masterful execution, and provenance? Would audiences appreciate this work?"

Of course there are sales and marketing dimensions to the art world, but we are talking about degrees and numbers. Primarily the art world is interested in questions of high artistic merit and integrity.

Which one is "better?" Neither. They are for completely different intents. I enjoy having sex with live trout.

Similar "packaging" distinctions can be made with food. What is the difference between a snack and a meal? Substance-based arguments will break down in exactly the same way we are discovering with music. Nutrition? Size? Preparation time? No, no and no. What distinguishes a snack from a meal is not what is IS, but what is done WITH it.

Snack candidates are items which lend itself to portability, one-handed eating while driving, movie watching, hiking, etc. and lack of messiness. Can meal items be treated as snacks? Why not? As long as it can be easily packaged, ported, carried, eaten and is relatively unmessy.

By using a "it's what you can do with it" orientation, we can make clear distinctions without becoming mired down in pitfalls of questions of complexity, substance, form, or style.

I'm still not sure what to do with jazz, though. It has aspects of concert or "art" music (classical) but also pop as well. Is it in some sort of vague middle ground?

[eduardo_b]

By using a "it's what you can do with it" orientation, we can make clear distinctions without becoming mired down in pitfalls of questions of complexity, substance, form, or style.

And yet, music is divided into types that reflect both technical and cultural characteristics. Many (most?) listeners will easily recognize (but not necessarily appreciate) classical, soundtrack, easy listening, pop, jazz and so on.

Classical can be divided into popular classical and serious classical. The latter can include the former, but not vice versa. Popular classic is sometimes accepted by those who otherwise don't like classical music per se. Popular classical compositions remind me of those collections of pop music -- golden oldies, 60s, 70s and so on. They're like the singles of classical music.

But none of them are popular in the pop sense of things. I have to wonder if "classical" music was popular even when it was being written and played.