Pop vs. Classical Music

[eduardo_b]

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.

I assume you mean following in the technical sense, not enjoyment of a fugue.

[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.

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.

You throw so damn many words out that it really is impossible to actually address your points.

But saying "whether you realize it of 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'." is false.

I don't think that 'classical' music is superior. I really don't. I have looked deep into my heart and it agrees with me.

As for the rest, as I said, too many words; not to mention too much psychologizing your interlocuters to decide 'what they really mean'; and too much extremely loose usage that borders on being catachrestic.

I just don't have the energy.

Sorry.

[eduardo_b]

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".-

To me, this is all about practicality, combining music history within cultural context. It seems to me that marketing came after the common categories for music were well established. Cataloging by category necessitates the division of music in functional types, and then the task is how to classify music into one or more of these categories. Marketing uses these categories to help customers find the kinds of music they're looking for, or, as you note, the attributes they expect from the music they like.

[vurt]

i believe it was dr dre on one of eminems recordings who stated "it aint nuthin but music".

[Meffy]

Pfft. Why don't y'all humans solve this like Real Men?

... with that mybrute game thingy. *nodnod*

[jancivil]

I think herodotus addresses my points well enough for someone who's refused to.

I have never seen the word catech - I have to look - catachrestic before.
Loose usage. oh well. If I were trying for a degree with this nonsense (like peoples do do), I guess it would have to be less loose.


If Dre said it on Ms Mather's record, it must be right. It IS all just music. It sucks being me and having NO GENRE, and no Personal Style, cause, I just can't accept the terms.


I tried that game, it wouldn't accept any name I gave it like all the names were taken or something. I get bored easy.

[Ph-J]

What is the difference between them?

classical music is the offspring of a written culture.
pop of an oral culture.

this gives different strenghts to both (written: more complexity possible, but the performance/sound apsect unadressed except by interpretative tradition // oral: smaller scale, less complexity, it's in the magic of the sound / performance that lies the point)

[rifftrax]

Classical is more complex than pop.

Pop is a simple derivative of what classical originated.

Oh, I don't know there is plenty of complex pop (Beatles come to mind immediately), and there is relatively simple (but good) classical music, like some of Haydn's work, etc.

Even a "simple" Haydn work is more complex than any pop song.

So Muse isn't popular music then.

[jancivil]

Even the most highly developed Haydn Mozart Brahms you-name-it classical-thru-romantic period European concert music is simplistic rhythmically compared to any James Brown super popular hit song.

Consider that argument demolished.

[vurt]

britneys hit me baby entertains and emotionally stimualtes as many people as any of beethovens symphonies.
listen, dont listen. its a choice.
plus most pop chicks are hotter than mozart

[jancivil]

Hit me

[Melkor]

Larry Lalonde included "Hit Me Baby ..." in his top ten songs in GW mag because "Its everything that is wrong with music, wrapped up into a single package"

EDIT: He followed that sentence by describing it as a masterpiece

I found that description hilarious

[jancivil]

I concur, it's a Masterpiece.

I mean in terms of form, it masters the form of a pop song.
It's sophisticated and direct at the same time.


The arrangement I posted in the youtube link, by one Dweezil Zappa, Kicks Ass.

It's an Interpretation! Now with Possible Complexities!

[jancivil]

Well, JS Bach wrote for church, and got gigs to supplement that. I think the purpose was to glorify God, and to make a better living, I also suspect that he felt it his life's purpose to do it. I don't know that he thought, "I'm going to do classical music instead of pop"

what rule? your rule?

[Dr Venture]Give 'em an inch, they think they're a ruler[/Dr Venture]

[aMUSEd]

I concur, it's a Masterpiece.