Pop vs. Classical Music

[mellotronaut]

the only classical one is this thread; there is no classical music: you're talking about orchestral or chamber music, i suppose.

[Ogg Vorbis]

well, Classical decribes a period in time. pop is forever!

big c

What about the classical pieces written this month?

Do you mean classical or orchestral ?

Well, classical orchestral pieces written in May of 2009?

[Acid Mitch]

Well, classical orchestral pieces written in May of 2009?

If they were written in May of 2009 that would make them contemporary orchestral pieces and not Classic.
There has been no new Classical music for almost 200 years hence the name "Classical".

[Ogg Vorbis]

Okay, how about a sonata for solo piano written in May of 2009?

[eduardo_b]

Classical (pop, whatever) might be describable in terms of music theory or history, but one only need let culture divide music by genre (radio, record store) to know what is what. It's not an intellectual answer but it works.

[vurt]

Okay, how about a sonata for solo piano written in May of 2009?

contemporary sonata.

[gabrielconroy]

Yeah Ogg Vorbis, I think you're missing a vital piece of information, namely that strictly speaking 'Classical' is a period in music history.

Bach was Baroque, Mozart Classical, Beethoven halfway Classical, halfway Romantic, Chopin full-blown Romantic.

What this tells us is that the common thinking that all music composed before 1900 is 'classical', and therefore one homogenous mass, is flawed, and therefore that this question is glossing over centuries of brilliance and innovation.

In the same vein, although they might both be considered pop, I wouldn't put The Beach Boys at anywhere near the same level as, say, Britney Spears. They're just completely different (not to mention that one is far, far, better than the other).

[nuffink]

Sure, Britney's better, but "far, far better"? That does the plucky barbershop quintet a bit of a disservice.

[herodotus]

Length

I would only say depending on how you classify a "song" from the classical era however. You could look at movements being each their own song in essence much the same as one concerto or opera (such as Wagner's Ring Cycle) can essentially be seen as an entire 'album'.

I meant the length. Nobody ever got laid to Wagner.

I got laid to Rimsky-Korsakov once. If I recall correctly, he came under the influence of Wagner after seeing the Ring cycle.

I guess that doesn't really count, though.



On the other hand, I would NEVER even contemplate screwing to the Beach Boys. Even an attempt at such would probably leave permanent psychological scars.

[pedrorf]

I meant the length. Nobody ever got laid to Wagner.

I got laid to Rimsky-Korsakov once. If I recall correctly, he came under the influence of Wagner after seeing the Ring cycle.

Tristan's prelude works for me. Tried Rimsky-Korsakov once (Scheherazade) but apparently it's not subtle enough

[Melkor]

I got laid to Rimsky-Korsakov once. If I recall correctly, he came under the influence of Wagner after seeing the Ring cycle.

I guess that doesn't really count, though.

I hope it wasnt "Flight of the Bumblebee" at full Presto.

That could take both parties some time to recover from

[DocAtlas]

Yeah Ogg Vorbis, I think you're missing a vital piece of information, namely that strictly speaking 'Classical' is a period in music history.

Bach was Baroque, Mozart Classical, Beethoven halfway Classical, halfway Romantic, Chopin full-blown Romantic.

What this tells us is that the common thinking that all music composed before 1900 is 'classical', and therefore one homogenous mass, is flawed, and therefore that this question is glossing over centuries of brilliance and innovation.

In the same vein, although they might both be considered pop, I wouldn't put The Beach Boys at anywhere near the same level as, say, Britney Spears. They're just completely different (not to mention that one is far, far, better than the other).

While I would hardly consider Wikipedia to be the most reliable source of information, it does seem to draw a distinction between Classic Music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music) and the Classical Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_period_(music)). The opening paragraph in the second link explains the distinction. At least in the opinion of the article's author. YMMV.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Yeah Ogg Vorbis, I think you're missing a vital piece of information, namely that strictly speaking 'Classical' is a period in music history.

Bach was Baroque, Mozart Classical, Beethoven halfway Classical, halfway Romantic, Chopin full-blown Romantic.

Well, "Classical" is a period, as you say. But often, music from the Baroque through 20th century is referred to as "Classical Music." I'm not a real fan of that word, but I used it because it's conventional enough.

Other words which lump all the periods together are, "serious music," (ugh!) or "concert music," (hmmm..) and "art music." All of these are distinguished from popular music.

I guess I still wonder what essential qualities make that distinction. It's sort of like defining pornography..."I know it when I see (hear) it."

[Max Headroom]

I thought of another one - and aside from vocals, this might be the most important one - the drums. Classical music tends to have drums as accents or highlights, while in pop music, the drums keep the time and provide a steady beat. Take almost any classical piece, add an appropriate kick/snare loop and you have pop.

Well going with some generalizations here, you could say say classical pieces are usually longer.

Classical pieces have more melodic variety within a single work.

Classical pieces have more structural variety within a single work. Rather than sticking to some variation of verse-chorus-verse-chorus, they are more flowing and progressive.

Not necessarily true at all. Consider rondos, minuet and trio, sonata, and theme and variation forms. Much of each particular period (especially earlier Baroque and 'Classical') used very similar chord progressions and cadences (how many times have you listened to a Baroque piece only to hear it end the exact same way as 500 other Baroque pieces...) The overwhelming majority of music in those eras created by minor composers was just as bewilderingly boring as the pop stuff today. People don't realize that we only listen to the genius' - Wagner/Haydn/Liszt/Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Schumann/Shubert/Chopin/etc.

Go listen to the boring unknown classical stuff. You'd be suprised. It's sucks. Really bad. People are no more or less talented/inventive/fresh in general today than 300 years ago. We only consider it to be so. Bad assumption.

Honestly, I don't know enough about the things you mentioned to dispute what you said. I am only going off the classical works I know (which are the most famous ones like you said). These tend to be long works, with a great deal of structural and melodic variety within a single work. There is one point that I wanted to stress though: please note that I'm not talking about variety across the whole genre - it doesn't matter to me that one piece ends the same as another. I'm talking about how one single work changes and moves from beginning to end.

Classical pieces use a wider range of instruments within a single work.(Although modern pop does employ a huge variety of sounds, especially thanks to synthesizers.)

I don't know why this would be considered true either considering the wealth of chamber works a lack of orchestral works involving every single part of the orchestra simultaneously. In fact - considering the continuing expansion of eastern culture (and really any for that matter) into general Americana and any other part of the world we now have more access to more instruments than anyone else in any other time in history has had.

Again, I'm just talking about single works here. Of course pop can employee every instrument under the sun. However, for any particular pop song you're likely to find 1-2 guitars, keys, drums, bass, and then maybe a unique instrument or two like a violin or harp. (Or they go the electronic route and employee sythnthesized replacements for those instruments.) In classical, you are more likely to find a larger variety of instruments for a work. Having said that, I do agree this is a pretty weak point.

Classical pieces usually rely on the strength of the music alone, while pop relies mostly on the vocals/lyrics.

Ignoring such minor things as operas and choral works...

Neither of which I consider to fall under the heading of "Classical Music." Opera is definitely it's own genre, but some choral works might fit.

[EdgeSounds]

generally, pop-music is for dancing, for fun; but art music is for appreciation. Classical is a period in music history, second half of the 18th century, with definitive musical elements and philosophic context.