Pop vs. Classical Music

[duncanparsons]

I chose Reich, because I happen to like his stuff and when he started it was totally left-field. Admittedly it has become more acceptable now and doesn't push on boundaries in the way that it used to. Please insert you own preference there, I wasn't being pushy

'rocks but isn't Rock':
rocks - current slang (less hip than it used to be) for is great, I like, hoopy, knows where its towel is.
Rock - music accepted to be in the genre of rock music.

..9 pages.. quite short for something of this nature. Just need a few vurtkittens and analog-bass jokes and we're complete..

[duncanparsons]

[apologies, server barf]

[aMUSEd]

I hear that it is short (pop)

Some classical can be very short (e.g. Webern)

complex (classical)

Some classical can be very simple (e.g. Satie)

doesn't have a verse-chorus based structure (classical)

Classical music can follow this sort of structure (e.g. many songs by Monteverdi and Purcell)

is an instrumental (classical)

What makes you think Classical = instrumental? (or orchestral as others have said) - lots of classical is vocal or includes vocals (Lieder, opera, choral, vocal chamber music, vocal symphonic works such as Das Lied Von Der Erde etc etc)

and sounds like it uses some heavily processed or synthesized instruments (pop).

The instruments used are irrelevant - many modern classical composers use synths, processed tape loops, recorded samples, Ondes Martinot. Theramin etc (in fact these things were pioneered in modern classical music).

[jancivil]

Yeah, you can even go to one source for vocals, drums marking time, ondes martenot (SYNTH), tape manipulation/processing and brevity and be in 'avant garde' classical, ie., serious art music and so far outside 'popular music' it's insane.

Edgard Varese. All of this behavior, before 1960.

[aMUSEd]

Yes he's one of the pioneers I had in mind.

http://www.classicalarchives.com/compos ... s&tv=about

[aMUSEd]

btw this site really clears up the confusion around the term "classical music"

http://www.classicalarchives.com/period/5.html

The musical designation "classical period" was first coined in the 1830s to refer especially to the "Viennese School" of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Franz Joseph Haydn, but has since been broadened to subsume the entire period between the more heavily-ornate Baroque and the more emotionally-charged Romantic eras - roughly 1730 to 1800.

the term "classical" is commonly used by the lay public to connote all of Western Art music

So it's both a relatively finite (although even then very diverse) period in the development of western European art music (including American) and a colloquial term for art music, which more specifically includes (amongst other forms) not just Classical but also Romantic, Impressionist, Atonal, Expressionist, Serial, Modernist, Minimalist, and contemporary (anything that is currently being produced, much of which doesn't have a name yet). Categories are largely meaningless though - many composers (like any self respecting artist) would refuse to have themselves labelled as a particular type - who wants to be stuck in a box with people you are trying to distinguish yourself from? Many composers are more interested in breaking down, fusing, exploring the spaces in between etc different styles and forms of expression, not being stuck in neat little categories.

[jancivil]

that puts it all nicely into perspective. thank you.

in terms of marketing, I know that applying a label, this thread proves it, means expectation: "it's gonna have these attributes as opposed to these other attributes".

Just to use what's been said a minute ago (and not to bag on anyone), if 'Steve Reich = avant garde', ie., enough people go to that bin with that thought, and end up with say me, what happens?

So, it can be an important consideration, for the record store employee, for the guy who writes the review, and for me in trying to come up with some kind of ad copy. But, I am less interested in using these descriptors, but a more subtle marketing concept, which will lead in by mystique, and other means.

I do think in terms of education these are important considerations. You get people who buy into a whole vast ancient marketing concept of High Art, which isn't challenged. Someone, say in art school tends to know better, as there's nothing that new about an admixture of 'high art' and 'low art', I mean Warhol crossed that line before lotta yous were born... but you still see this, 'European Art Music, just like Michaelangelo, is obviously a higher realm than *you-hame-it*. And that an admixture which includes 'popular culture'-derived elements or materials is suspect, and inferior somehow.

And the insistence on 'it's more complex' is part of this.
I've studied it, in detail. 'Brahms', just an example, is just not that complex a music. Compared to say 'Funkadelic'... it's not 'more complex than'; unless you accept certain criteria as 'complex - read: sophisticated' without having looked at it really. It's a certain sort of highly developed architecture which sort of sussed out its historical model, certainly. But, it's simple tunes which aren't 'not pop', and easy to follow chord changes, and rhythmically simple enough. [It uses the technology of that time extremely well. That time is historically over. It was a very limited palette to have compared to a hundred years later, and it's now another half century under the bridge.]

gah, what a lecture...

[vurt]

i spoke to a friend.
he works at a couple local venues, as a steward type bloke, at venues that caters for all kinds of music including both classical and pop concerts. so i asked him what he thought the main differences between the two where, his answer was one that puts it better tha any of us ever could...
"we dont tend to find teenagers getting fingered in the interval at classical gigs"

[jancivil]

Next album title, Fingered in the Interval

[Ogg Vorbis]

Next album title, Fingered in the Interval

Love it!

[bobupstairs]

What an interesting dicussion!! But, to really answer these questions we have to delve into the human thought process and understand why we need to classify things in general. Classifications help us define our feelings about everything we encounter. It most likely stems from a defense mechanism that defined the danger level of things around us. It is very evident in racism. If we don't like people of a particular ethnicity and encounter one that we haven't met previously, we instantly catagorize the individual and apply the 'feelings' that we have for the group. We pre-judge.

But back to music. Catagories are useful but in no way change how the music sounds. Some things labeled 'pop' are really expressive and beautiful. My wife uses the term 'pop' because the music is simple, un-challenging. That's her definition of 'pop'. She is not fond of some of my music; she has to think too much. She talks about classical music and makes exceptions for things she likes! "It's classical but pretty."

The definition of any style of music would have to be set by a recognized standards organization, just like the scientific community has. We are the rulers of the world and we can name things anything we want!!!

[SparkySpark]

What an interesting dicussion!! But, to really answer these questions we have to delve into the human thought process and understand why we need to classify things in general. Classifications help us define our feelings about everything we encounter. It most likely stems from a defense mechanism that defined the danger level of things around us. It is very evident in racism. If we don't like people of a particular ethnicity and encounter one that we haven't met previously, we instantly catagorize the individual and apply the 'feelings' that we have for the group. We pre-judge.

But back to music. Catagories are useful but in no way change how the music sounds. Some things labeled 'pop' are really expressive and beautiful. My wife uses the term 'pop' because the music is simple, un-challenging. That's her definition of 'pop'. She is not fond of some of my music; she has to think too much. She talks about classical music and makes exceptions for things she likes! "It's classical but pretty."

The definition of any style of music would have to be set by a recognized standards organization, just like the scientific community has. We are the rulers of the world and we can name things anything we want!!!

Bob - great thoughts on an interesting subject!

My wife doesn't like my music either, but that has nothing to do with complexity - she's really smart (not to say your wife is not, as I haven't heard your music... ).

Some fifteen years ago I classified art in general in an art journal. Maybe the time has come to classify music, but really - who needs a definition like that? "Rulers of the world" sounds better to me, but if someone out there needs a definition, I'd gladly help.

/SparkySpark

[herodotus]

I do think in terms of education these are important considerations. You get people who buy into a whole vast ancient marketing concept of High Art, which isn't challenged. Someone, say in art school tends to know better, as there's nothing that new about an admixture of 'high art' and 'low art', I mean Warhol crossed that line before lotta yous were born... but you still see this, 'European Art Music, just like Michaelangelo, is obviously a higher realm than *you-hame-it*. And that an admixture which includes 'popular culture'-derived elements or materials is suspect, and inferior somehow.

Well, lets put it this way: it takes more training to do it properly.

That there is a silly notion prevalent in some circles that 'if it was done by guys who wore powdered wigs it is better than if it was done by people wearing jeans', I have no doubt.

But that shouldn't blind one to the fact that it takes a great deal more training to write, say, a fugue than it takes to write a pop song. Hell, it takes training just to follow a fugue.

This doesn't make it better, just different. And 'Marketing' has nothing to do with it. Nor does one have to be 'for' western cultural imperialism to think this. It is similarly difficult to play in a Balinese Gender Wajang ensemble. It takes training. You can't just sit down at an instrument and 'start jamming'. There is a learning curve.

Pop is inherently different from this. You can write a pop song even if you are completely untrained and can barely play or sing. All it takes is to hear a melody in your head.

[debra1rlo]

i spoke to a friend.
he works at a couple local venues, as a steward type bloke, at venues that caters for all kinds of music including both classical and pop concerts. so i asked him what he thought the main differences between the two where, his answer was one that puts it better tha any of us ever could...
"we dont tend to find teenagers getting fingered in the interval at classical gigs"

Hmmm... and exactly where might this venue be?

[jancivil]

I do think in terms of education these are important considerations. You get people who buy into a whole vast ancient marketing concept of High Art, which isn't challenged. Someone, say in art school tends to know better, as there's nothing that new about an admixture of 'high art' and 'low art', I mean Warhol crossed that line before lotta yous were born... but you still see this, 'European Art Music, just like Michaelangelo, is obviously a higher realm than *you-hame-it*. And that an admixture which includes 'popular culture'-derived elements or materials is suspect, and inferior somehow.

Well, lets put it this way: it takes more training to do it properly.

That there is a silly notion prevalent in some circles that 'if it was done by guys who wore powdered wigs it is better than if it was done by people wearing jeans', I have no doubt.

But that shouldn't blind one to the fact that it takes a great deal more training to write, say, a fugue than it takes to write a pop song. Hell, it takes training just to follow a fugue.

This doesn't make it better, just different. And 'Marketing' has nothing to do with it. Nor does one have to be 'for' western cultural imperialism to think this. It is similarly difficult to play in a Balinese Gender Wajang ensemble. It takes training. You can't just sit down at an instrument and 'start jamming'. There is a learning curve.

Pop is inherently different from this. You can write a pop song even if you are completely untrained and can barely play or sing. All it takes is to hear a melody in your head.

SO, let's imagine someone trained to write a fugue properly made something with the intent to be more widely understood... what have they done? If they went into the area of, whatchamacallit, 'Pop' = name that genre, but retained 'good voice leading'. Is it "Classical" because it used widely accepted better craftsmanship, done by some cat from the Academy? Or is it Pop because more people related to it. If it's the same music in different bins in the record store, who made the call. You?

Let's say we grant that WA Mozart tried to be 'classical', since he followed the accepted model of craft in his day. Did he, endeavor to have his tunes be Popular, or not? Cause, he was Strictly From Commercial, every time out. He wanted to have a hit. He did POP. He is STILL POPULAR. Look at Vienna, you fly into Vienna, he's on the candy wrappers on the plane.

It's a Genre Tag. It doesn't objectively tell me what the music is necessarily. Now, "Mannheim Schule" or "18th century Counterpoint" vs "16th century...", does. Those aren't useful marketing tools any more, not so much. But "Classical" still is! It is a marketing concept. When Wolfgang set out to sell his services to the courts, he had to be viable in their idea of what would go over among the peers they had to impress.

It takes training to follow what a post production facility did on a Britney record too. That is following a technology with a learning curve... but that's different than following the technology of how a fugue is put together? Whether you realize it or not, you're saying 'it's better than' because it's 'technologically superior to', or 'it required a level of craft the other doesn't'.

If I were trying to satisfy the criteria of either market, I would study each technology and endeavor to master it.

"it takes more training to do it properly". That means what? "Do it properly"? You can have studied both thoroughly and still do them 'badly'. You seem to be saying you can get away with bad craft in pop, and not so much in classical. What evidence is there for this? Sales? Mass Consensus? It's obvious, you'll say. Because all it is is the ability to hear a tune, to write 'pop'. No. It Wasn't Pop, if it Wasn't Popular. It didn't get to be Popular if it totally wasn't Done Properly. You had to have sussed a learning curve or two. I'll grant you, they can be thought of as different disciplines in some cases. But that's all.

These are Marketing Concepts.