Pop vs. Classical Music

[duncanparsons]

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.

'Classical' for Bach would have been Gregorian Chant, rather than the gregarious chant of his mates down the pub.

[eduardo_b]

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.

'Classical' for Bach would have been Gregorian Chant, rather than the gregarious chant of his mates down the pub.

Not, I assume, the chant of yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me. And these days, of course, yo ho has an entirely different meaning -- urbanly* speaking.


*urbanly isn't really a word, is it?

No, I didn't think so.

[vurt]

i disagree.
with everything thats been said so far.

[eduardo_b]

i disagree.
with everything thats been said so far.

You could at least have waited until page 10 shows up.

[p356]

well, Classical decribes a period in time. pop is forever!

big c

Except that it changes. Weren't madrigals, sea chanties, ragtime, etc. the pop music of the day? Much different than today's pop music.

[vurt]

well, Classical decribes a period in time. pop is forever!

big c

Except that it changes. Weren't madrigals, sea chanties, ragtime, etc. the pop music of the day? Much different than today's pop music.

that was kind of my point.
Classical (big c) is the music of a specific time.
pop, is all different musics across the times involving all sorts of tunage.

but as i said, i disagree with everything, which includes my own posts.

[jancivil]

What is the difference between a snack and a meal? A label. Maybe you gorge yourself more with a meal, and end up with gout later.

The difference between music genres is a difference of 'which bin' for the record store employee. It doesn't mean more than that.

I kind of doubt there was any 'classical music' for JS Bach. There wasn't marketing. There was no classical bin.
There was the church gig, or the gig with the court 'Herr Brandenburg', which in both cases he had to play ball the right way to be successful at. As a devout God person, he prob'ly dug the church gig better, but who knows. He was trying to have a hit, and I do doubt he had this elevated 'art music' label in his head at the time he was making a living making music. Instead of a record label, there was Herr Brandenburg et al.

Also, there is, what, no industry and no money being made in classical music? That's news to me. The schmuck in the third desk in some vast orchestra isn't as rich maybe as the schmo in the second rhythm guitar slot on the Britney session?; give me concrete examples of just how differently an 'industry' works. Custom built shoes versus PayLess. It's still shoes what go on your feet. It's important for some people to show you they got fancier shoes and an expensive watch to tell the time, is the elevation you're essentially talking about with 'classical *Art* music'. It's not like 'closer to God' or something because it's 'cleaner'.

[p356]

well, Classical decribes a period in time. pop is forever!

big c

Except that it changes. Weren't madrigals, sea chanties, ragtime, etc. the pop music of the day? Much different than today's pop music.

that was kind of my point.
Classical (big c) is the music of a specific time.
pop, is all different musics across the times involving all sorts of tunage.

but as i said, i disagree with everything, which includes my own posts.

I thought you might think that, nobody I saw touched on that with regards to pop music. I was kinda calling you out to see what you meant. Here's another post you can agree or disagree with-you're welcome.

[duncanparsons]

I've often wondered about that. If there was a 'pop' music of a given time, was there also 'rock' equivalent, or experimental?
Was there a King Crimson equivalent in mediaeval England? overdriven Lutes in 17/16..
Was there a mid-C19th electro outfit? would have probably been steam powered, or maybe 'gastro'
Was there a Kirsty MacColl of the 800s? 'There's a guy works down the village swears he's Arthur..'

[jancivil]

well, Classical decribes a period in time. pop is forever!

big c

Except that it changes. Weren't madrigals, sea chanties, ragtime, etc. the pop music of the day? Much different than today's pop music.

that was kind of my point.
Classical (big c) is the music of a specific time.
pop, is all different musics across the times involving all sorts of tunage.

but as i said, i disagree with everything, which includes my own posts.

So, classical music doesn't invade anything any more, is your argument.

Boy do I disagree with that.

The pop music of a certain time has its influence mainly on that time. Example Given: Broadway show tunes were really huge at one time. They were the basis for much of what exists in jazz music practice, the basis for many, if not most of its conventions At The Time. That changes, everything changes. Because One Day suddenly it isn't popular so much.

Those tunes were derived to some extent from classical practice, and combined with things from American Music which were 'new' at the time, from Negro musics, basically. But that classical music used pop tunes as the basis, or you would have called them 'folk tunes' or something else since there wasn't an industry in place for Joe Shmoe to go and tool it into a hit record, and no market in place. So I agree with you there. It was 'always' pop music. Classical is just a different codification of 'pop tunage' Big C Classical. (Obviously you get into art behavior in the last century or more, where Not Popular can be 'cool'. And even Not Entertaining is de rigeur, which I disagree with.)

100 years from now, ALL of this will be merely historical footnotes, it goes into a melting pot of a database to draw from, and these distinctions won't mean doodly squat to a composer. Which may be an archaic word by that time.
To say that "pop" is pervasive where "classical" isn't is amazingly shortsighted.

[v1o]

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?

Thanks for the insight enjoyed reading this.

[duncanparsons]

I enjoy having sex with live trout.

Captured for posterity

[Ogg Vorbis]

I enjoy having sex with live trout.

Captured for posterity

My god, there ARE careful readers on KVR.

[jancivil]

I thing Ogg's article is pretty ok.

But there are a coupla hilarious bits.

The art world, as if somehow elevated just by the word 'art', isn't disinterested in big big big money. Quite the contrary. It uses dollar amounts to ascribe 'value' just/like/anywhere/else. And they can be Large Amounts, and preferably ARE. It may use a different calculus to decide a dollar value than the pop record industry, or any record industry uses, but they deal in commodities in the most direct sense.

Mozart Always Was a Commodity. His father made certain he was a Viable Commodity in the Composer Market. Just because it's an ancient market paradigm which isn't that much like today's, doesn't mean 'not a commodity'. I agree that it's a different package, but it does not require the other type of package to have been commodified on a large scale. 'It's a meal and not a snack' you say? What, you can't pop it in your DVD player in the car, and mostly ignore it while you drive? Why, because it's Holy Mozart or something? Is there no Mozarts' Greatest Hits available or something?

I do believe the *record industry* has yet to exclude Tchaikovsky, and the Nutcracker Suite means work for a lot of people at least on a seasonal basis. And, he has other commodities on the market currently! Which do pretty well, I'd guess. Selling tickets to people as an entertainment. Which cost more than the cineplex in many cases to go see, so, a good commodity.

ONLY when you get into areas of 'f**k it, I am not EVEN submitting this to the marketplace' do you say: "Not a Commodity". And whether Vince Van Gogh sold a painting or not, he wanted to pretty bad. And, it's A Huge Commodity, one o these pictures now.

[eduardo_b]

Big C Classical

This is what people refer to when it comes to classical music. Despite all the fine points, influences and lineage, in practical terms the differences between classical music and every other genre are obvious enough. The cultural meanings of these differences are significant in how they are perceived and received by listeners and consumers of music. But the same can be said for literature versus books, films versus movies, fine art versus photography.