Pop vs. Classical Music

[vurt]

are you on a nazi reading week at school or something?
can i havea word with your carer?

[psionic]

This extra baggage -- the music industry, marketing, entertainment, ulterior motives -- are various opinions and environments around the music. The fact is classical music refers to a time period and a music theory, and its practitioners and the schools that follow it. The body of classical work is high art.

Pop music is folk music, the music of the relatively less educated masses, popular by virtue of its greater appeal. Simpler is more appealing to more people. Some aspects of the pop environment may be more involved, but the music that is "pop" is not high art.

Trying to equate both forms of music as inherently equal, by insisting that they have equal entertainment value, is similar to claiming that the sculpture of David is just some high-falutin', pompous creation of art that has the same inherent worth as some 4th grader's clay bowl. Marketing be damned. There are different levels of art, with different sets of rules to be followed, and different levels of craftmanship.

[eduardo_b]

This extra baggage -- the music industry, marketing, entertainment, ulterior motives -- are various opinions and environments around the music. The fact is classical music refers to a time period and a music theory, and its practitioners and the schools that follow it. The body of classical work is high art.

Pop music is folk music, the music of the relatively less educated masses, popular by virtue of its greater appeal. Simpler is more appealing to more people. Some aspects of the pop environment may be more involved, but the music that is "pop" is not high art.

Trying to equate both forms of music as inherently equal, by insisting that they have equal entertainment value, is similar to claiming that the sculpture of David is just some high-falutin', pompous creation of art that has the same inherent worth as some 4th grader's clay bowl. Marketing be damned. There are different levels of art, with different sets of rules to be followed, and different levels of craftmanship.

I'd basically agree, with the caveat that educational levels may not reliably predict taste when it comes to music (and probably many forms of art). As with all stereotypes, there's no doubt some truth to it, but I seriously doubt the correlation stands up to closer examination.

I seem to remember herodotus noting in a thread from long ago that classical music as we know it was never popular. Neither is jazz. Instrumental music in general (see thread on so-called lead singer disease) has far less appeal than music with one or more vocalists. I think it's simply human psychology. The human voice and language are fundamental to our being, and thus much more appealing to more people than music without these. Which is not to say that instrumental (including classical) music has no appeal, but nowhere near what popular music (dominated by singers) has.

[Gamma-UT]

One way to look at it is that pop/folk and classical are simply forms of music that diverged, followed different paths but have met up at various points in history and have, since the start of the 20th Century, seen much more crossover.

Philip van der Merwe argues that classical borrowed a lot from folk music in the transition from medieval to baroque and classical. And folk and pop have borrowed heavily from classical (not just Stock, Aitken and Waterman or Procul Harum).

The only clear distinction that I can think of between the two lies in the way that classical music evolved out of plainchant in the late Medieval period, which itself owed a lot to Greek theories of music. This was a time when theoreticians were trying very hard to make a connection between musical intervals and mathematics - Greek music philosophers split into two groups, only one of which was bothered about actually making music. The pure ratios of fourths and fifths didn't look like a coincidence, so they had this idea that there was a pure music of the spheres to be discovered. In the meantime, minstrels were happily running around playing pentatonic scales and not really bothering about the purity of their intervals.

But if you look at the transition church music went through on the way to counterpoint and then harmony, it was accompanied by big changes in tuning. Composers realised they had to open up the musical palette, and mess with tuning, to get usable results. But in the kind of counterpoint taught by Fux, and to this day, there are rules that hark back to these early theories. Not allowing tritones and only allowing a move from a third or sixth to a fifth by contrary motion have a lot to do with the hangover from church music.

At the same time, the feudal system fell apart, with a small but affluent middle class willing to pay to listen to 'better' music and buy paintings. So, they helped sponsor the evolution of music and painting from stuff that the church had, up to that point, paid for. Out of all that grew classical.

Meanwhile, folk music continued to evolve with forms like the blues not just using the tritone, but making a feature of it. Then along came the 20th Century composers who started to borrow elements from blues and jazz, while experimenting with new rules that did away with tonal music. Finally, we wound up with the situation where Philip Glass takes a bunch of Bowie songs and classicises them using ideas that such as recapitulation and development that were born in the baroque period. It's hard to decide which elements of the Low and Heroes symphonies make them classical, but you know it when you see it.

[Max Headroom]

I'd like to make 4 points.

1. Ogg, your take on classifying music by its business side (what we can do with it) is unique, but flawed. If you flipped through random radio stations and asked the average person to identify whether the song was classical, pop, or other, they would not base their decision on the criteria you suggested. Given a random 30 second clip, they would have to base their decision on the sound of the music, not the politics behind it. Therefore, the music itself has to have one or more intrinsic qualities that cause it to be classical or pop.

2. In this thread, we are not using a consistant defintion of either classical or pop. Everyone has their own ideas. If we could answer the questions "What is classical?" and "What is pop?" we would automatically have the answer to "What is the difference between the two?"

3. The method of dismissing generalizations by finding a counter example is also flawed. For example, classical pieces are generally long, complex, instrumental, don't use drums to mark the beat, and have a large variety of instruments. You might be able to find a classical piece that is contrary to ONE OR SOME of those individual generalizations. However, you cannot find a classical piece that is contrary to ALL of those generalizations. Otherwise, it would no longer be considered classical. (And, if you could find a piece that is contrary to all of those points, but is still considered classical, then that piece would have another element that must be added to the list.)

The point is that there is probably not merely a single element that defines pop or classical, but a variety of elements that combine to do so.

4. Dead trout bite less.

[eduardo_b]

1. If you flipped through random radio stations and asked the average person to identify whether the song was classical, pop, or other...they would have to base their decision on the sound of the music, not the politics behind it.

2. In this thread, we are not using a consistant defintion of either classical or pop. Everyone has their own ideas.

The point is that there is probably not merely a single element that defines pop or classical, but a variety of elements that combine to do so.

To me, these represent what I suppose one would refer to as common knowledge, the sorts of things that don't require substantial analysis to understand easily. It doesn't take much to recognize rock, pop, country, standards, classical, rap, opera and so on. It might require greater knowledge to discern subgenres, and some kinds of music might easily be lumped together (say, electronica) even though others would easily separate it into categories (trance, idm, house, whatever). The details are less important than a cumulative familiarity with music styles that comes from hearing music during one's life from a variety of sources and in a multitude of places.

For example, hearing Beatles songs played by 101 strings is neither rock/pop nor classical. There are many reasons why, but we simply know this by comparative information we already possess and can apply quickly and easily. Which is why I don't see technical analysis having much value for typical listeners, who already retain enough information to recognize common music genres and know whether they like or dislike each one to varying degrees for various reasons.

[jancivil]

1. If you flipped through random radio stations and asked the average person to identify whether the song was classical, pop, or other...they would have to base their decision on the sound of the music, not the politics behind it.

2. In this thread, we are not using a consistant defintion of either classical or pop. Everyone has their own ideas.

The point is that there is probably not merely a single element that defines pop or classical, but a variety of elements that combine to do so.

To me, these represent what I suppose one would refer to as common knowledge, the sorts of things that don't require substantial analysis to understand easily. It doesn't take much to recognize rock, pop, country, standards, classical, rap, opera and so on. It might require greater knowledge to discern subgenres, and some kinds of music might easily be lumped together (say, electronica) even though others would easily separate it into categories (trance, idm, house, whatever).

It doesn't take much for you or me to discern genre.

Let me give a concrete, and to me funny example: Last time I ever hung out with my mom, I put in the cassette of our little avant-garde weirdo outfit in the car player. Just to see if it raised an eyebrow or what.

The cover tune was Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven. Ok, with drums. and some REAL tweaks of the harmony.
This was NOT 1001 strings playing Beatles. This would be relegated to the experimental bin in the record store, more than likely.


Momma dint know it wasn't just the local college classical station. "what is that? I LIKE that!" And, her tastes in pop music were pretty good!


*Genre division = marketing*

[jancivil]

This extra baggage -- the music industry, marketing, entertainment, ulterior motives -- are various opinions and environments around the music. The fact is classical music refers to a time period and a music theory, and its practitioners and the schools that follow it. The body of classical work is high art.

Pop music is folk music, the music of the relatively less educated masses, popular by virtue of its greater appeal. Simpler is more appealing to more people. Some aspects of the pop environment may be more involved, but the music that is "pop" is not high art.

Trying to equate both forms of music as inherently equal, by insisting that they have equal entertainment value, is similar to claiming that the sculpture of David is just some high-falutin', pompous creation of art that has the same inherent worth as some 4th grader's clay bowl. Marketing be damned. There are different levels of art, with different sets of rules to be followed, and different levels of craftmanship.

If you define classical music, with the capital C, it is a practice period. I happen to understand the practice exceedingly well. This doesn't mean I have a necessary appreciation of all of it. I also have an historical set of referents as to its actual function in the society, which did inform what the heck it sounds like.

ALL MUSIC IS INHERENTLY EQUAL to the non-cognoscenti. An ascription of High Art to something because it is part of an accepted historical canon, is someone buying into a Marketing Ploy.

At one time in history, an artist had to be quite the craftsman, due to the very fact of having to find patronage, it was no easy feat to do, at all. So, you'll have a statue o' David being a very very FINE piece of craftmanship.
Without a doubt, there is no reasonable argument against it. But, is your argument that this level of craftmanship is tantamount to a higher level of endeavor (than, "Nice Job")? WHY? Someone told you so? It has high moral content because it's Religious Enough? Someone with Authority got you to agree? THAT IS MARKETING> this is what Marketing DOES.

At other points in history, an artist was less concerned with having to gratify the tastes of persons in the ruling class. There figured in here a gradual democratization of information, even knowledge of things, exposure to more and more of the whole gamut. As a result, opinions were more informed, not only among the Riff Raff, but the Aristocracy might have a wider understanding in potential of what might be done, in an 'art work'.

To insist to me a value judgment of Michaelangelo Bonaravi as some Alpha and Omega of HIGH ART VALUE, over 'child's play' is ignorant of a lot of things in the potential of human endeavor, in my estimation.

You can go to Shattuck Street in Berkely California, right by the public library and see exhibited the Art Works of some very small children, who have been guided by more enlightened souls probably than you. It's miraculous.
And might reveal more light from the human soul than this David, which has the baggage of a history I personally do not find full of light in every case study, YMMV.

The ascription of High Art, is an ascription of Aesthetic Judgment. It's an OPINION in raw terms. It isn't, it can't be more than that. It can't be shoved down everyone's throat as if there's some sort of law. I don't buy it, I don't buy "marketing be damned"; it's palpably clear that you have bought into a whole area of aesthetics becasue it was Marketed to you well enough, by what you have chosen to grant Authority.
Which has such Authority, why?, you may ask yourself.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I'd like to make 4 points.

1. Ogg, your take on classifying music by its business side (what we can do with it) is unique, but flawed. If you flipped through random radio stations and asked the average person to identify whether the song was classical, pop, or other, they would not base their decision on the criteria you suggested. Given a random 30 second clip, they would have to base their decision on the sound of the music, not the politics behind it. Therefore, the music itself has to have one or more intrinsic qualities that cause it to be classical or pop.

2. In this thread, we are not using a consistant defintion of either classical or pop. Everyone has their own ideas. If we could answer the questions "What is classical?" and "What is pop?" we would automatically have the answer to "What is the difference between the two?"

3. The method of dismissing generalizations by finding a counter example is also flawed. For example, classical pieces are generally long, complex, instrumental, don't use drums to mark the beat, and have a large variety of instruments. You might be able to find a classical piece that is contrary to ONE OR SOME of those individual generalizations. However, you cannot find a classical piece that is contrary to ALL of those generalizations. Otherwise, it would no longer be considered classical. (And, if you could find a piece that is contrary to all of those points, but is still considered classical, then that piece would have another element that must be added to the list.)

The point is that there is probably not merely a single element that defines pop or classical, but a variety of elements that combine to do so.

4. Dead trout bite less.

Max! Nice post, thanks for the thoughtful words.

Your Point 1 brings us back to the old conundrum...is it possible to use musical characteristics as a distinguishing method? It's like porn..."I know it when I see it" even if I can't define it.

But in point #3 you seem to be saying that a musical genre is what it is because of a "critical mass" of characteristics. That still leaves so many cases outside the ideal cases where a pop tune can be reclassified due to instrumentation, legnth, etc., doesn't it? And then what do you do with all these cases with less than critical mass?

It's interesting to take the pulse of musicians on this thread and notice that distinctions are unimportant to musicans, and presumably to audiences. I'm starting to take this view myself, now that we've been at this a while. The whole question is like a mirage in the desert.

Oh and thanks for the hot tip on point #4, but personally I find the biting to be the good part. To each his own, I guess.

[jancivil]

[Ogg Vorbis]

I'd hit it.

[eduardo_b]

Let me give a concrete, and to me funny example: Last time I ever hung out with my mom, I put in the cassette of our little avant-garde weirdo outfit in the car player. Just to see if it raised an eyebrow or what.

The cover tune was Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven. Ok, with drums. and some REAL tweaks of the harmony.
This was NOT 1001 strings playing Beatles. This would be relegated to the experimental bin in the record store, more than likely.


Momma dint know it wasn't just the local college classical station. "what is that? I LIKE that!" And, her tastes in pop music were pretty good!


*Genre division = marketing*

This seems to bring up another approach, which is that knowing what is what doesn't have to matter if you like (or dislike) what you're hearing, although it might matter if you wanted to hear more or less of that kind of music and thus want it identified. Enjoying music doesn't need to be an exercise in musical acumen unless that knowledge is part of the enjoyment.

To me, genre division is a tool both for music exploration and for those marketing to people who like to explore genres. Saying classical or hip hop provides at least some guidance. The only alternative I can think of is "sounds like" -- as in, sounds like [fill in the blank]. That's the Pandora approach. I had my wife try Pandora about a month ago, and she seeded it with Dire Straits, which she loves. But she didn't necessarily care for some of the songs that Pandora put into that category (despite their elaborate music analysis algorithms), so I'm not sure how effective it really is unless one has fairly eclectic tastes.

And, really, in the end, your mother can probably identify common categories effectively. I mean, she knows classical from pop, right?

[jancivil]

I would never say marketing is bad or not useful, not at all, even the opposite.

I just want to disabuse people in general, I think it's educational to recognize its prevalance.


I don't go for most C & W, I guess I tend to avoid it in the record store. But I like it when it's good.

My mother, if you presented a totally pop tune which isn't necessarily ornamented in a particular 'classical' style, but uses a symphonic orchestra, she might not have known it wasn't classical, if it wasn't a tune she knew.
The thing is, it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. I remember her reading the liner notes to Electric Ladyland, what she bought me for Xmas that year, and saying, 'he's a good poet'. And we went to see Jimi together. It was 'kind of loud', but she thought it was good music. Rock versus Country, where's the line, you know, you use an overdriven guitar amp, it's rock, who knows. You got a contrabassoon doing the bass line in a heavy string arrangement, it's 'a symphony'.


In general/to address the whole thread:

As far as *entertainment value*, who gives their time to something which they are not entertained by?
I mean people do, to seem intellectual to someone I suppose... Why is this Entertainment a bad word? Compared to 'Art'?


High versus Low Art, seems like a class war to me, really. And Question Authority. OR ELSE!

[duncanparsons]

Let me give a concrete, and to me funny example: Last time I ever hung out with my mom, I put in the cassette of our little avant-garde weirdo outfit in the car player. Just to see if it raised an eyebrow or what.

The cover tune was Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven. Ok, with drums. and some REAL tweaks of the harmony.
This was NOT 1001 strings playing Beatles. This would be relegated to the experimental bin in the record store, more than likely.


Momma dint know it wasn't just the local college classical station. "what is that? I LIKE that!" And, her tastes in pop music were pretty good!

You wouldn't still have that tape would you? I'd love to hear it

[jancivil]

No, I do not. It had a couple of things I hate to lose, one improv which worked out so well, it's one of my better moments compositionally. There are probably people with copies in the world, but I'm not running into them anywhere. I kinda doubt it will turn up on eBay. HAAH