Pop vs. Classical Music

[jamesmcfadyen]

If it's genre fight I gotta say Classical. I'm not a big fan of Mozart and Beethoven et al but modern composers like John Adams, Steve Reich, Vince Mendoza, Michael Torke and Joan Tower make for impressive and dramatic listening.

[jancivil]

'pop vs classical?' is a question for people working in a record store, having to decide 'what bin?'

[jancivil]

Yeah, Britney IS far better than The Beach Boys, without a doubt

[psionic]

Classical is more complex than pop.

Pop is a simple derivative of what classical originated.

[jancivil]

What exactly did "classical" "originate"?

[Fidelity]

What exactly did "classical" "originate"?

The chord progressions and a lot of the melodies used in pop songs.

[jancivil]

You just might find, if you look at it, that 'a lot of' 'classical' music is a highly decorated and ornamented version of some melodies which were 'popular' and in currency to begin with.

[A.M. Gold]

What is the difference between them?

Age.

[A.M. Gold]

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.

[hibidy]

Ok, this is insane.

Classical.....we are not talking "classical rock" are we? Otherwise, there really is no topic

classical music isn't even in the sub sub sub SUB genra of pop. I like to type, but it's impossible to explain that one here! Besides, comes across as a joke to me

[duncanparsons]

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

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.

God only knows where I'd bee without you..

[duncanparsons]

At college we had a thing where we would swap l's for r's, and p's for s's in words. (don't ask why, like many stupid college things it just happened that way late one night )

Anyway, using 'chinepe', this thread becomes about 'crappicar' and 'sos' which seems about level debate

Rather than just come and snipe from the sides though, I would say that given that (central heating aside) the music is made up from the same notes, following mostly the same conventions. There are those who have and do use those conventions to great effect, there are fantastic examples of breaking the conventions, there are appalling artefacts of both that have been not just published but promoted into the public consciousness. This is not being genre specific, just music specific.

Considering the 'what is classical' theme, arguably, to call a work 'pop' it should be 'popular'. So anything outside of the Billboard 100 (being generous..) is not pop. And songs that were in the charts and then fall out of the bottom can no longer be considered 'pop'. So that rather writes off that barbershop quintet, and as for 'that little band called the Beatles' - when were they last in the charts?

Classical? Pop? I guess whatever floats your boat is what (for you) is better. In terms of theory and the written score, there isn't always alot to tell them apart.

DSP

[hibidy]

you said

'crappicar'

ah hahahehhehehehehe, hehehe, yeah.heheheehh



I dunno man, I don't get the slightest on the take. They couldn't be further apart in my not so humble opinion

[psionic]

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.

Most pop songs can be boiled down to a relatively simple variation of AABA structure-wise, the melody is always the lead vocal, there might be some simple vocal harmonies (2, maybe 3 part, almost always paralle/similar motion), and the harmonic structure consists of very conventional chord structures in block form. Bass lines always on the dominant.

On the other hand, even a "simple" classical piece will often outdo even those limited parameters mentioned above --

1) the song structure will be more than an AABA variation,
2) at a minimum the melody is in the lead voice, but more often than not is repeated elsewhere
3) there is at least a carefully constructed 3 part harmony that employs more than melody:vocal + harmony:block chord + bass:root
4) many, many chordal variations (and not just ii-IV7-I variety, but the open/closed and 6 or 3 in the root kind as well)
5) fully developed bass lines (6's and 3's, ostinatos, etc)

We could go on, but let's use another example: jazz vs pop. Jazz has many of pop's simplicities, but is also has many complexities of its own than certainly surpasses.

Classical is a learned, erudite, theoretical endeavor. For the scholar.
Pop is the masses good time, soaked up like learning a language. For the everyday man. Not to say that it's all bad, nor that all classical is inherently better, just that by definition one is simple, the other complex. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but it is the rule.

Film scores? most related to classical
Kiddy songs? most related to pop
National anthems and folk songs? most related to pop
Fully orchestrated anthems and folk songs? most related to classical

Classical is to calculus as arithmetic is to pop. One's not better than the other, simply more complex.

[eduardo_b]

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.

Not even Mrs. Wagner?