Pop vs. Classical Music

[Ogg Vorbis]

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.

In pop music's industry, it's all about marketability of the commodity. The question is, "what will be maximum return on this product be? If I invest x, will the number of units sold be worth my investment?"

It's a pure business question. Just like selling potato chips, cottage cheese, cars or condoms.

The lesser important question pop music industry executives ask themselves is, "how can we participate in sustaining the world's most important works in pop music and reach a fresh, new generation of audiences?" It happens, but it's not the primary question.

I think that in the classical/legit/concert/art/whatever you want to call it world, value IS less emphasized in terms of its commercial value. Deutsche Grammophone execs don't sit around in their offices and wonder how to get their numbers up to Ting Tings level. They KNOW their product isn't going to get those numbers...that's not why they're doing it.

My theory, mighty Tigress, is that you've taken my points and twisted them into unrecognizable shape in order to be outright dismissive. But I ask you to examine with me these beautiful and subtle shades of grey, that we may learn something about music's creative intent and savor the soft scent of the jungle orchids before devouring the morning's still-thrashing and bloody prey. (Not sure what that last part means, I was going with a tiger/jungle/seduction theme there. Enjoy!)

[eduardo_b]

In pop music's industry, it's all about marketability of the commodity. The question is, "what will be maximum return on this product be? If I invest x, will the number of units sold by worth my investment?"

It's a pure business question. Just like selling potato chips, cottage cheese, cars or condoms.

This is correct. Pop music is a business model within the music business that exists as a cash machine for revenue. Independent classical music labels do not generate revenues anything like that from pop labels, nor do those classicaql labels that are actually divisions of media companies known primarily for their popular music releases. These classical divisions are prestige labels, maintained less for profit and more for the status they confer. They may actually be doing better business (percentage wise) relative to their pop cousins, where sales are significantly reduced, because I'd guess there are few people downloading classical music from 2P2 networks. Wrong demographic.

[jancivil]

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.

In pop music's industry, it's all about marketability of the commodity. The question is, "what will be maximum return on this product be? If I invest x, will the number of units sold be worth my investment?"

It's a pure business question. Just like selling potato chips, cottage cheese, cars or condoms.

The lesser important question pop music industry executives ask themselves is, "how can we participate in sustaining the world's most important works in pop music and reach a fresh, new generation of audiences?" It happens, but it's not the primary question.

I think that in the classical/legit/concert/art/whatever you want to call it world, value IS less emphasized in terms of its commercial value. Deutsche Grammophone execs don't sit around in their offices and wonder how to get their numbers up to Ting Tings level. They KNOW their product isn't going to get those numbers...that's not why they're doing it.

My theory, mighty Tigress, is that you've taken my points and twisted them into unrecognizable shape in order to be outright dismissive. But I ask you to examine with me these beautiful and subtle shades of grey, that we may learn something about music's creative intent and savor the soft scent of the jungle orchids before devouring the morning's still-thrashing and bloody prey. (Not sure what that last part means, I was going with a tiger/jungle/seduction theme there. Enjoy!)

No... what dismissive? I'm just seeing how good your argument can be. If one's line of BS isn't challenged, one remains complacent. You realize you're already sounding like a collidge lecturer (albeit a trout fancying one) with this whole silly topic. I'm going to have fun with it why not.

There are plenty of shades of grey, where am I being absolutist? It's all grey in fact, the black and white thing is posed in the topic thread more than anything I would want to try and say. "...VERSUS..."

They just aren't that different. Marketing tells us things are this and that, and marketing is bullshit, it's based on bullshitting you. The idea of Art being a more elevated ideal than Entertainment, is a Marketing Concept.

If you think DG records is wholly unconcerned with marketing... ever notice just how glossy those record covers were (assuming you've held one in your hands as opposed to a CD)? That's marketing. It's designed to lend a cachet of gloss to a product. The product is tied in with live performance in a different way that pop. It's designed to support less suits, in the main. It has less attendant bullshit in the whole process, because of what it does try to do. They know they're above certain peoples heads, they go with it. They know they have to develop their form of 'niche market'.

Sure, it's a substantially different product. With the appropriate business model for what it is.

I'm interested in disabusing people of this grand notion and exquisite aroma attendant to such a high falutin notion, of 'classical music' being way up in some stratosphere, like it's a religious experience. It's an entertainment package.
(It's sausage like all other sausage, with better casings. if you've ever seen it made....

I prefer some disgusting but OH SO TASTY chorizo to this german shit. LOL)

[mothman]

Interesting topic. I have always thought of anything as robust as "classical" or well music from any period considered great has everything to do with the listener.
Back in the day so to speak I figure educated folks as common listeners were exposed to the weekly entertainment. So be the music and theater of their time. They knew more about what was generally exposed to them. In whatever period people knew about certain aspects of pieces and could speak with some decent criticism of each and still victims of popular media.
What did a kid learn about in schools, community and general table discussions at these different times. I would say about twenty years ago the music business was just about as fat and happy as ever in history. The media was more controlled and exposure was delt out as wanted. Look hey heres disco! How many artists of that time rode that train.
Now I think times are changing. You are allowed as much information and opinions about anything as you wish. The problem there arises as most folks have a few basic terms to discuss then they are an expert. Another problem is that the music you make is exposed to these experts, which are not I am sure everyone will agree.
That's where record companies have your balls and why breaking groups end up either getting better at what they do as pure talent and they are received by their own merits or now a company will steer and produce into a certain market.
Black Sabbath...Icon...Ozzy with Randy..Radio... now Ozzy hour???
Bowie...Icon...More Bowie...uh marketable
Terminator 1...cheesy soundtrack...now most coveted synths.

It's all about learning and appreciation. Nothing wrong with it.

But i bet years ago a simple beer guy listening to a lute could pick out a better musician easier than watching so you think you can dance.

No doubt talent rises it's just our education to receive that talent as listeners or Sunday boot parties.

Sorry for the long post, it's just my take on things.

The average 15 year old buying a record now compared to buying a ticket for a Stravinsky concert has different qualities to receive what we call amazing.

Now we have anything at a moments download, anything that doesn't click right now we move on.

See I just discovered Priestess, an awesome album that just rocks. Never thought I would like that so much however so defining and in the way I can evaluate makes me very stoked I can listen to that and easily turn someone on to it.

Nuff said. As you try to compare the two look for both relevant structure, innovation, musicality and finally performance. That will define a long lasting piece of music for years to come. Pop, Classical whatever do what's hot well and you might do well. Hang your head out and it'll get chopped off if you are lucky. Might be taken well. Who knows and who cares just play that shit without any regard and make it great for your audience. Hell create an audience. Lunch boxes helped one guy, don't listen much myself.

Best regards

[herodotus]

I'm interested in disabusing people of this grand notion and exquisite aroma attendant to such a high falutin notion, of 'classical music' being way up in some stratosphere, like it's a religious experience. It's an entertainment package.
(It's sausage like all other sausage, with better casings. if you've ever seen it made....

I prefer some disgusting but OH SO TASTY chorizo to this german shit. LOL)

It's a much more complex 'entertainment package' than most pop music, considered melodically, harmonically or structurally. You can like or dislike it as a result, but that doesn't change the fact that it is more complex.

It also has more thematic and dynamic contrasts, and these contrasts are more subtle than in most pop music.

I think that these statements are pretty much factual.

Whether this makes either one better or worse is a question that I will leave to those who think they know the answer.

[jancivil]

these statements are also pretty much obvious... and kind of a dead horse.


there is still here, the aroma of 'better than entertainment', which, if it ain't got that schwing...


Complex, can be good bad or indifferent, it's not apt for denoting "higher quality", much less this spiritual aroma... but it does! and I just think that's good marketing. And there's nothing wrong with good marketing, it isn't evil any more than pop music is less an exaltation of whatever than Beethoven or some deal.


But Alex liked to f**k to some Ludwig van, who knew...

[Tony Ostinato]

maybe i missed where you guys covered this but...

the term classical was from how they classified pieces, like 1st sonata in d, 3rd concerto in c, etc etc most of the songs didnt have titles like we have now.

i do both classical and pop gigs. generalizations are only generally correct but i find classics more challenging and pop more fun.

in classical the point is often to impress other musicians, and in pop of course youre trying to impress as many people as possible any way that you can.

for instance if you arent really familiar with trumpet playing youll not know the endurance challenges in playing a piece of any length and you wont know how hard it is to play high notes, so its a lot like some alien from a planet with no gravity watching a televised human weight lifting contest they say so what and who cares. you cant dig it if you dont get it.

[jancivil]

when I was a little bitty classical guitar performance major, the big thing on a guitar was, the Partita in D minor they called The Chaconne, by JS Bach, or if you could whip out some Paganini out of the bag of 24 whatevers.

The challenges of instrumental athleticism, have Entertainment Value for the Cognoscenti. Beyond that, does it tickle your ear or not. The fact of the super achievement for the hand or embouchere in and of itself has little to offer me aesthetically.


ON the other hand, a guy called Ben Britten had a reverse set of variations on an ancient John Dowland Pop Tune called Nocturnal, which was hard as shit to play and sounded really swell, and had a level of thought to match its dexterity demands and statistical density insofar as note ons.

A whole lot of what's in Classical (let's say Classical Period) music, is *complex* largely for the sake of gratifying the cognoscenti's opinion of itself, and does not really have a level of thought to match that amount of statistical density in its form or content. But, one might buy into that whole marketing; it's the right aural wallpaper for your life/it suits the sophistimacated idea you have of yourself.

[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.

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.

wow, what an awful lot of words just to disagree with me by agreeing with me.
i didnt actually make any argument for one being something another isnt, i merely indicated that the labels have different meanings.
but they are just labels.

but then, there would be no point in arguing would there

[jancivil]

aw, that a lot of words for you? paragraphs even, ouch. nappy time then?


I disagree with everything except my own posts. even when I agree with yours, I'm being disagreeable.



you missed the joke? no smileys! you mighta missed it.

[vurt]

no, i see the joke, i just dont think it realises it is one.

[jancivil]

how very disagreeable.

[vurt]

i disagree.

[Tony Ostinato]

a rule of thumb is people love the music thats one skill level above what they can play and hate the music thats two skill levels above what they can play.



my personal view is i make a real effort to like everything, and to be able to play as close to everyhting as i can because by the time i learn to play it i usually get whats good about it and why other people like it.


in other words there is no lame music, only lame musicians.

[Rangtangtang]

Since they are both recorded and performed therefore there can't realy be any difference? Except one is a group friends and the other is a political organisation. Classical musician's wear red arm bands do they not and belong to a neo-nazi organisation who are practicing social conditioning?