Pop vs. Classical Music

[v1o]

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.

Actually I believe Ogg is quite correct. It is often difficult to clearly and absolutely define meaningful divisions between musical styles in such a way. The nearest example on my head would be William Orbit's "Pieces in Modern Style". Now this was marketed as a classic music album and the single Adagio for Strings even charted on the Classic Music chart. But to my own ears this work sounded more like electronica.

Alot of modern classic music is fused with electronic instruments, often times it becomes difficult to tell whether it is classical, electronica, chillout or ambient music. Another good is example Myleene Klass' music. It is officially Classic music, but I would personally identify this as Instrumental Pop because of its structure and instrumentation. See link below.

[vurt]

there where also a few quartets in the charts in the past few years.
admittedly they were babes as well which i think helped.
but over here not so long ago even opera was hitting the pop charts in a big way, with a couple of number ones even.
perhaps because they were chosen as sporting events themes, but isn that the point, when something is prevalent in popular culture it becomes part of that culture?
could we not say that due to hollywoods use and borrowing of classical musics means that classical music is now a part of popular culture, more so than ever before?

[psionic]

Which is why definitions do need to be set here. It will separate market from music.

If a traditionally classical piece of music makes it to the pop charts, that piece does not all of a sudden classify as "pop music". Splitting hairs, but producing a pop version or gaining pop status or watering down or prettying up or adding a beat to a piece of music does not change whole categories of music. Else everything becomes everything else. [palindrome]

The marketing, demographics, audience IQ, amount sold, $$$$ made, these all do not change the theory that is behind the creation of the music.

Brahm's lullaby, as taught by mother to daughter, sung by a young girl singing her baby brother to sleep, is one way pop lives on. Brahm's lullaby, the fully-scored version, being dissected by a college student in Music Theory 101, is one way Classical music is taught. So, is Brahm's famous melody pop, or is it classical? Context matters, so it is pop when sung by the little girl, and it is Classical in the context of a score, a history, and a fully-developed theoretical background.

If one wants to keep insisting that it all boils down to marketing, then yes, it ALL boils down to marketing. The sale of a Van Gogh, a McHappy meal versus caviar, new pharmaceuticals, the Discovery channel, popular baby names, and on and on ad nauseam...

It's as if the original question has devolved into a back and forth over the invasive and vulgarizing effects of modern media and mass marketing on these particular art forms. Classical music is not the only victim here, for sure. FWIW:

Original sub-forum: MUSIC THEORY
Original post: Pop vs. Classical Music
Original question: What is the difference between them?

[Ogg Vorbis]

So, is Brahm's famous melody pop, or is it classical? Context matters, so it is pop when sung by the little girl, and it is Classical in the context of a score, a history, and a fully-developed theoretical background.

Great post! Context as a definer! I notice that the AUDIENCE and not the critic, the musician, nor even the composer defines the context. As always, the power rests firmly in the audience. They are the ones who define John Cage's 4'33" as music and they are the ones who ultimately decide what is "classic" and what is ephemeral.

[jancivil]

Gee, I thought 'Pop' abbreviated 'Popular'.


WHO KNEW it had distinctions such as that between a madrigal and a motet. Which are Formal Categories.


I'd love to see a formal description of the difference between subjective contexts in this Brahms Lullaby question.

Is it formally different when sung by a Professional with an Acceptable Vibrato, which puts it in a certain slot...
a slot for whom, the record store bin?

this is an INTERESTING ENOUGH thread to have gone on this long, despite it seeming to have no real good answer on this essential formal difference, or Music Theory definition..


I got you to admit it's a question of marketing. My job is done here.

I would personally not be concerned it's more invasive than it ever was, that's a natural process of Devolvement.

[aMUSEd]

End the thread:

[Max Headroom]

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.

Is it possible? I believe so. Is that how it is done in modern music? Judging from some of the responses on this thread, I'm less sure than I used to be, but I still think that yes, musical characteristics are used as a distinguishing method. For the most part, these characteristics aren't explicity written down or stated. Classification would be more effective if an organizational body codified the official standards for music to be considered one genre or another. I just don't think that there's a big enough reason to do so.

In the future, this may change, as music historians and anthropologists in the distant future look back and analyze our current culture with a critical and scientic viewpoint. But as for now, that's not the case.

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?

Certainly there are many shades of grey. In cases where there is ambiguity, I'd think that you'd have about 3 choices:
1) Expand the defintion of the main genre to more fully embrace the ambiguous piece.
2) Classify the ambiguous piece as "Avant-garde," which literally means "advance guard" and implies that a work is ahead of its time or the beginning of something new. This is basically a catch-all category for works with no clear genre.
3) Create a new genre for the ambiguous piece. Looking outside the main genre, if there are other similar works currently labeled "avant-garde," then it is time to create a new genre.

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.

Right, and I think that's the important thing to remember in the end. Genre classifications can be useful for shopping and for finding music similar to what you already like, but one can't take them too seriously. You can use the methods I suggested, but in the end, it won't matter, because everyone has their own ideas. And that's okay.

[Max Headroom]

Alot of modern classic music is fused with electronic instruments, often times it becomes difficult to tell whether it is classical, electronica, chillout or ambient music. Another good is example Myleene Klass' music. It is officially Classic music, but I would personally identify this as Instrumental Pop because of its structure and instrumentation. See link below.

That is a great example. I'll go through my thought process (from my last post) step by step.

1) Expand the defintion of the main genre to more fully embrace the ambiguous piece.

At first listen, I want to say this piece is clearly classical. However, in an earlier post, I said adding a strong drum beat to a classical piece makes it pop. (I was half-joking, but I think the idea holds some merit.) That means that this piece could be considered pop by my own definition. Looking at the other qualities, I hear that it is short (pop), complex (classical), doesn't have a verse-chorus based structure (classical), is an instrumental (classical), and sounds like it uses some heavily processed or synthesized instruments (pop). Overall, I'd say classical still has the edge. In that case, I'd reverse my previous statement and say that it is okay for classical to have a prominent drum beat. I'd change my definition of the main genre.

But let's say it was too evenly matched for me to be sure. In that case, I'd try option 2.

2) Classify the ambiguous piece as "Avant-garde," which literally means "advance guard" and implies that a work is ahead of its time or the beginning of something new. This is basically a catch-all category for works with no clear genre.

Assuming I've never heard anything else like this piece, I'd feel comfortable calling it Avant-garde. However, before I do that, I should check around to see if any other musicians have done things in a similar style. That's option 3.

3) Create a new genre for the ambiguous piece. Looking outside the main genre, if there are other similar works currently labeled "avant-garde," then it is time to create a new genre.

In fact, I have heard similar songs to this one. I've heard an electronic mix of Bach's "Toccata Al Fugue" called something like "Castlevania - Bach - Toccata Al Fugue (Dracula X Techno Mix)." (Sorry, I don't know who made it.) Also, William Orbit's album you mentioned also has similar material. So given that there are at least a few artists making music in this style, I'd strongly consider creating a new genre (or sub-genre if you prefer) to group these artists together. Perhaps "classitronic?" Perhaps not.

Anyway, that's how I'd do it.

[jancivil]

Alot of modern classic music is fused with electronic instruments, often times it becomes difficult to tell whether it is classical, electronica, chillout or ambient music. Another good is example Myleene Klass' music. It is officially Classic music, but I would personally identify this as Instrumental Pop because of its structure and instrumentation. See link below.

That is a great example. I'll go through my thought process (from my last post) step by step.

1) Expand the defintion of the main genre to more fully embrace the ambiguous piece.

At first listen, I want to say this piece is clearly classical. However, in an earlier post, I said adding a strong drum beat to a classical piece makes it pop. (I was half-joking, but I think the idea holds some merit.) That means that this piece could be considered pop by my own definition. Looking at the other qualities, I hear that it is short (pop), complex (classical), doesn't have a verse-chorus based structure (classical), is an instrumental (classical), and sounds like it uses some heavily processed or synthesized instruments (pop). Overall, I'd say classical still has the edge. In that case, I'd reverse my previous statement and say that it is okay for classical to have a prominent drum beat. I'd change my definition of the main genre.

Anyway, that's how I'd do it.

I use electronic instruments, slap bass, overdriven guitars feeding back apocalyptically, drums up the yinyang, all sort of 'noisy' things. Not to indicate genre, but as a sound palette. Not to grab a piece of a market (though I'm interested in marketing, that's right!), to paint the tone poem/animate the cartoon.

The thing is, I don't want the audience to suddenly wonder, 'oh shit, is this not classical music?' . Or, 'naw hell no, that's jazz and I don't like no jazz'. Because this, naming things, is strictly from secondary considerations...

I have to ask you when you say, 'that's how I'd do it', why WOULD you do it?
What's the difference is my whole point here.
It's for a reviewer from some media to do, for a record store employee to worry about.

Music is an infinite canvas, whole worlds of sound and light, get these dumb ass words about it out your damn way.
Because they're not useful to the experience of the music, in real time. You're not living when you do it, you're not in the moment of the music, you're in a shopping mall looking at socks.

[Max Headroom]

I came back to this thread at 4:17am just to post my new name for the hybrid genre of pop and classical, and I found your post, jancivil:

I have to ask you when you say, 'that's how I'd do it', why WOULD you do it?

I'd do it for the puns. "Popsical."

[duncanparsons]

Some of what Max is talking about is interesting.. I mentioned Louis Clarke earlier, but no-one seemed to notice, but those of a certain age may remember the 'Hooked On Classics' of the early 80s. This was setting classical works with acoustic and simmons drums, and occasional electric bass. Classical or pop/rock?

Those of that age may also remember the now largely forgotton band 'Sky' with Herbie Flowers (originator of the 'Walk on the Wild Side basssline') and John 'Cavatina' Williams. They raison d'etre of that band was to play classical music, but with rock instruments. They also wrote new music which if you played it on solo piano or with a chamber orchestra would be indistinguishable from a period piece. Go find their 'Chiropody' which was faithfully in the style of Satie's Gymnopedies [is that old enough to be in the non-timeperiod based classical canon?] amongst others. Their most known work was their interpretation of the opening of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in Dminor. Classical or pop?

There was Lloyd Webber's 'Variations' from '78, a reinterpretation of some Paganinni with members of Collosseum II and a few others. Fantastic work. Others (Brahms, Rchmaninov, Benny Goodman, etc) had worked with the same source material to great effect. Classical writing, rock/prog setting.

Going back further, there was B. Bumble and the Stingers with the 'Nut Rocker'.. Classical or pop?

I'll resist going on about progressive rock at length, but that particular melting pot transcended these boundaries with ease. I'm talking 'classical' prog here - the ideology rather than just mellotrons and 7/8 - taking in Stackridge, Family, Penguin Cafe Orchestra and others. Where 'avant garde' has been mentioned, I often see prog tho' often the 'rock' element of the epithet has no context there.



It's all the same frequency range..

DSP

[loose snare]

- Classical describes a period in history just as much as it does a style of writing or genre.
- Music written outside that period in time but conforming to the style can therefore be called 'In the style of classical' etc
- Or if the link is tenuous or ambiguous simply 'orchestral'
- Why the need to reduce music to a one word description anyway? ....... I suspect this thread is more about defining 'validity' and importance of certain styles/ genres/ individual works or composers. I'd suggest discussing that directly rather than in a roundabout way through use of terms of categorization.

- Does anyone remember the strings at the start of 'Papa Don't Preach' .... then going straight into that totally 80's bass line- quite awesome, it just popped into my head

[jancivil]

Yeah, I remember that, that arrangement isn't bad at all.



'Rock has no context in the avant-garde', ok dude. Cut yourself off at the hip or something, your call.

[duncanparsons]

'Rock has no context in the avant-garde', ok dude. Cut yourself off at the hip or something, your call.

erm, if that wasn't to me, that's fine.
If it was to me, then that's a misquote.

Where 'avant garde' has been mentioned, I often see prog tho' often the 'rock' element of the epithet has no context there.

In that "prog" is a shorteneing of "progressive rock", and that whilst 'avant garde' is 'progressive' not all of it has a 'rock' connotation, and hence often the 'rock' element of the epithet has no context there.

For instance Steve Reich writes avant garde [progressive] music that rocks but isn't Rock.

Hope my opaque English is mildly transparent now!

DSP

[jancivil]

ooh, thanks. though I didn't paraphrase you out of line.

the modifier 'often' was missing, though I would wonder why 'often' and not 'at times', but that's your prerogative.

I still think words such as 'progressive rock' puts a special little wall up that doesn't do a lot but say, 'this wallpaper suits my musical room'. And if something 'rocks' but 'isn't rock', that also seems like Special Language I don't speak.

This all is why I HATE the question "what kind of music do you do?" Cause, if Reich 'rocks' and is 'avant garde', I'm not doing anything like that, and would Totally Not want to be lumped with that... but I would have leaned toward that as a default to save some useless words.

So, thanks.