I hate pop music

I see this thread's back but gianluca's gone.

Methinks he didn't get the response he was expecting!!

BTW RE:

I would say a larger reason for the decline of classical music's popularity, besides the unfriendly if not hostile attitudes of 20th century composers to the public, is the existence of snobby attitudes like the one you've expressed in this post. How interested do you think someone is in listening to your music if all you do is tell them their music is garbage? This seems like possibly THE most effective way to turn people off towards classical music.

Very well put indeed!

Originally Posted by Will Kirk

No, I know you meant "stigma"

Stigmata is sores and markings, I don't think that's very relevant to music at all

Stigmata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stigma is just intolerance of people because of certain beliefs or visual attributes, in this case it's people that like pop music versus "non" pop

Stigma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, I get those two mixed up occasionally. After my initial post I double checked it and fixed it. Though I must remember sarcasm does not transfer well over the internet.

No, really?

Pianoman, I will briefly respond to some of your points.

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Good pop isn't any less inventive than a lot of classical. I'd say pound for pound, classical actually adheres to formulas more strictly than pop, especially in periods like the classical and baroque era that tended to have very exact conventions about what harmonies were appropriate, what the structure should be, what ensembles were allowed, etc.

I am talking about melodic, harmonic and rhythmic invention. Even what is considered good pop music usually doesn’t have the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic richness and invention found in most classical music. True, in the baroque and classical periods, there were certain strict conventions most composers adhered to, but the greatest composers achieved immense creativity within these conventions. So even while Bach’s music adhered to certain rules and conventions of those days, it can hardly be called formulaic, for it doesn’t simply rely on these conventions, but rather treats these conventions as musical constraints, within which the composer can be highly creative. This cannot be said for most pop music in the charts. A lot of pop producers (those producing songs for teenybop nitwits like Britney Spears and Beyonce) simply rely on formulas while there’s hardly any truly creative invention involved in producing this stuff.

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Overall I'd say the best classical is typically more original than the best pop, though. A number of great classical composers over the centuries have created entirely new ways of looking at harmony and at music in general, in ways that are basically unprecedented in pop music. However, given the relatively short time popular music has been created with the intent of being deep personal expression and art, it has created a remarkable amount of innovative artists.

Innovative artists? Like who? Most innovative developments in pop music are not about musical innovation – they are more about innovation in lifestyle (e.g., the punk revolution in the 1970s), overall atmosphere or choice of instruments, rather than purely musical innovation on the dimensions of melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. In classical music one can find a kind of genuine musical innovation (think of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring which was innovative with respect to rhythm, harmony, melody, orchestration, etc.) I believe one will never find in pop music.

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Hmm? I'd say my taste in music is less dictated by my culture than would be possible in any previous time - using the internet and other communications mediums, I can find out about artists and composers I never would have known about and hear genres ranging from the most simplistic punk rock to the intricacies of Webern, Shostakovich, etc. Anyone who's really serious about music and has access to decent internet can find out about more artists than he or she would ever have known about in, for example, the 18th century.

Popular culture is forced upon us, not explicitly in a stalinistic way, but implicitly by its overwhelming, unavoidable and ubiquitous dominance. Unlike you, most young people nowadays will probably never find out about any other music than pop music, because for them, pop music is the only music that exists. Although we are free to choose whatever musical genre or style we like to listen to, one may wonder how great this freedom is in a society where a lot of kids get exposed to an almost exclusive diet of pop culture....

(to be continued in next post...)

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Hmm? I'd say my taste in music is less dictated by my culture than would be possible in any previous time - using the internet and other communications mediums, I can find out about artists and composers I never would have known about and hear genres ranging from the most simplistic punk rock to the intricacies of Webern, Shostakovich, etc. Anyone who's really serious about music and has access to decent internet can find out about more artists than he or she would ever have known about in, for example, the 18th century.

Popular culture is forced upon us, not explicitly in a stalinistic way, but implicitly by its overwhelming, unavoidable and ubiquitous dominance. Unlike you, most young people nowadays will probably never find out about any other music than pop music, because for them, pop music is the only music that exists. Although we are free to choose whatever musical genre or style we like to listen to, one may wonder how great this freedom is in a society where a lot of kids get exposed to an almost exclusive diet of pop culture....

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Popular music pushed art music to the margins? Look at the attitude of 20th century composers like Boulez and his modernist ilk and it becomes quite clear that modern classical, in its drive for avant-garde quasi-invention, invention that strives more for "new concepts" than truly excellent, moving music, is responsible for its own place in the margins. Pop music filled a huge gap that classical musicians and appreciators created themselves.

Why blame Boulez and the like for this? Modernism was a natural and logical step in the evolution of Western art music. I’d rather blame the fact that audiences have become more and more (culturally/musically) uneducated, which is why pop music was able to gain such enormous popularity and attention in the first place.

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

I don't really understand this. Are you seriously making the absurd statement that the most complex popular music is less complex than the most simplistic classical music? The most complex composition by Autechre (to name one example) is more "shallow" than the most simplistic piano sonatina? This is ludicrous.

This is a rhetoric issue and I have already acknowledged that I am generalizing to some extent and that there are exceptions to the rule (read some of my later posts). I am not saying that all pop music is more shallow than all classical music, but I stick to my belief that pop music is more shallow than classical music in general.

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

I'd say little or no pop music reaches the lack of emotional profoundness reached by the atonalist hacks that spread in the 20th century.

This statement shows a gross ignorance of 20th century atonal music. The reason why most listeners fail to experience atonal music emotionally is because they are so unfamiliar with its vocabulary. As soon as one becomes more familiar with it, one will realize that atonal music is just as well capable of expressing emotional profoundness.

Originally Posted by gianluca

Pianoman, I will briefly respond to some of your points.



I am talking about melodic, harmonic and rhythmic invention. Even what is considered good pop music usually doesn’t have the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic richness and invention found in most classical music. True, in the baroque and classical periods, there were certain strict conventions most composers adhered to, but the greatest composers achieved immense creativity within these conventions. So even while Bach’s music adhered to certain rules and conventions of those days, it can hardly be called formulaic, for it doesn’t simply rely on these conventions, but rather treats these conventions as musical constraints, within which the composer can be highly creative. This cannot be said for most pop music in the charts.

A lot of pop producers (those producing songs for teenybop nitwits like Britney Spears and Beyonce) simply rely on formulas while there’s hardly any truly creative invention involved in producing this stuff.

Did it ever occur to you that they might NOT be trying to be inventive?

And what exactly in your mind is true creative innovation?

Not ALL music has to be new creative or inventive, you seem to have alot of anger towards pop musicians. What the heck exactly makes them worse than a classically trained musician?

You're really coming off as being a bigot when you talk like that

Well, to be perfectly honest, I sense some hypocrisy in your statements Gianluca. You seem to be calling people who like pop music close minded idiots who know nothing of geniunely "good" music (whatever the hell that is) yet you are the one who seems to be dismissing EVERY single genre of music that isn't classical. I'm curious as to how much you actually listen to pop music. You don't seem very familiar with it and you aren't very specific. You continually just refer to it as just "pop music" yet name no specific artists. Surely, if ALL pop artists suck then you'd at least be able to name a few names. I strongly dislike rap and rarely listen to it but even I could give you about five names of rap artists who I hate. Also, may I ask what the point of starting this thread was? Some people here have made very valid points but you seem to be very stubborn and set in your ways. So if you were so determined to maintain your opinion on classical music, then why start this thread? Were you expecting a bunch of people to rally with you then you'd all march out onto the streets and protest the horror that is pop music?

These are honest questions. I would type my own feelings on pop music but I'd like to better understand your position first.

Originally Posted by gianluca

I am talking about melodic, harmonic and rhythmic invention. Even what is considered good pop music usually doesn’t have the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic richness and invention found in most classical music.

Generally, it isn't pop music's intention to have the same harmonic and melodic sense classical follows. A piece of pop music in many genres typically involves a few simple chord progressions along with a repeated melody (usually involving a simple "hook") - the intention is to create a simple but original theme, repeat it and develop it enough to make it effective, and move on. Complaining most popular music doesn't have enough harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic "richness" is somewhat like complaining that a piano sonata doesn't have violins. It should be also noted that popular music often places a far heavier emphasis on timbre than on harmony/rhythm, an emphasis not always present. To understand pop music, you have to be sensitive to changes in timbre.

True, in the baroque and classical periods, there were certain strict conventions most composers adhered to, but the greatest composers achieved immense creativity within these conventions. So even while Bach’s music adhered to certain rules and conventions of those days, it can hardly be called formulaic, for it doesn’t simply rely on these conventions, but rather treats these conventions as musical constraints, within which the composer can be highly creative. This cannot be said for most pop music in the charts. A lot of pop producers (those producing songs for teenybop nitwits like Britney Spears and Beyonce) simply rely on formulas while there’s hardly any truly creative invention involved in producing this stuff.

You're making a deceptive comparison - between the very best of the Baroque era, Bach, and the lowest quality of pop music, the drivel by Britney Spears and Beyonce that is half the time not even written by the "artist" adhering to it. Yes, Bach did innovate heavily even within the forms he adhered to; the same cannot be said of all (most?) Baroque composers, especially considering that history has forgotten many of the worst.

Innovative artists? Like who? Most innovative developments in pop music are not about musical innovation – they are more about innovation in lifestyle (e.g., the punk revolution in the 1970s), overall atmosphere or choice of instruments, rather than purely musical innovation on the dimensions of melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. In classical music one can find a kind of genuine musical innovation (think of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring which was innovative with respect to rhythm, harmony, melody, orchestration, etc.) I believe one will never find in pop music.

What makes changes in atmosphere and instrumentation less valid than changes in melody, harmony, and rhythm? As I mentioned before, timbre is typically the focus of popular music, and changes in it are focused on more than changes in other aspects of the sound. Nonetheless, artists like Autechre, Radiohead (sometimes), and Sigur Ros bring new ways of looking at harmony, rhythm, and melody to popular music, besides innovating in the texture of their music. And the extreme metal scene, for all the formulaic nature it sometimes falls into, has also contained a number of innovators who focused heavily on changes of rhythm and complex rhythm as well as unconvential (and often discordant) harmonies - Death being one good example.

Popular culture is forced upon us, not explicitly in a stalinistic way, but implicitly by its overwhelming, unavoidable and ubiquitous dominance. Unlike you, most young people nowadays will probably never find out about any other music than pop music, because for them, pop music is the only music that exists.

It's hardly fair to blame the laziness of consumers on the popularity of pop music. Someone serious about finding good music can find it without trouble. As for popular music being the only music that exists, give me a break - even if they've never heard a full piece by him (and most people have heard at least a few), every knows who Beethoven is. Everyone recognizes the name of Mozart, except for the most ignorant of consumers.

Although we are free to choose whatever musical genre or style we like to listen to, one may wonder how great this freedom is in a society where a lot of kids get exposed to an almost exclusive diet of pop culture....

In previous eras many kids would be exposed to an almost exclusive diet of the type of music popular in that era, and unlike kids today, wouldn't always be able to find other types without a lot of time and effort. Today finding a new genre, be it jazz, baroque era classical, or one of pop music's many subgenres, only takes a trip to the library or a click of a weblink.

Originally Posted by gianluca

Popular culture is forced upon us, not explicitly in a stalinistic way, but implicitly by its overwhelming, unavoidable and ubiquitous dominance. Unlike you, most young people nowadays will probably never find out about any other music than pop music, because for them, pop music is the only music that exists. Although we are free to choose whatever musical genre or style we like to listen to, one may wonder how great this freedom is in a society where a lot of kids get exposed to an almost exclusive diet of pop culture....

"In a Stalinistic way"? Geez, don't hold back on your hyperbole now.

Why blame Boulez and the like for this? Modernism was a natural and logical step in the evolution of Western art music. I’d rather blame the fact that audiences have become more and more (culturally/musically) uneducated, which is why pop music was able to gain such enormous popularity and attention in the first place.

Why blame Boulez and his ilk? Surely you can see the reasons. Boulez and others like him promoted a style of music more focused on intellect than emotional effectiveness and violently (not literally, of course) attacked any who pursued more harmonious directions, as well as essentially abandoning the centuries of tradition. Regardless of whether their music was a "natural and logical step," (in my opinion a very dubious statement) their attitude to the "masses" was at best unwelcoming and at worst outright hostile; with their attitudes, it is easy to see why the attention of many changed, either to the developing genre of jazz or to innovations in popular music.

This is a rhetoric issue and I have already acknowledged that I am generalizing to some extent and that there are exceptions to the rule (read some of my later posts). I am not saying that all pop music is more shallow than all classical music, but I stick to my belief that pop music is more shallow than classical music in general.

In general? Possibly. This still seems like a poor reason to attack all of it.

This statement shows a gross ignorance of 20th century atonal music. The reason why most listeners fail to experience atonal music emotionally is because they are so unfamiliar with its vocabulary. As soon as one becomes more familiar with it, one will realize that atonal music is just as well capable of expressing emotional profoundness.

It is capable of it, but it far too often does not reach it or attempt it. What do you hear more about new atonal composers - that their music is affecting and profoundly emotional, or that it is "innovative"? I can tell you what I hear more. Yes, many atonalists were brilliant and created brilliant works, but others were hacks more concerned with their "revolution" than actually writing interesting music.

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

What do you hear more about new atonal composers - that their music is affecting and profoundly emotional, or that it is "innovative"? I can tell you what I hear more. Yes, many atonalists were brilliant and created brilliant works, but others were hacks more concerned with their "revolution" than actually writing interesting music.

Actually, you have put your finger right on Gianluca's weak point right there.

He speaks continuously of "innovation" and rejects anything that isn't "innovative" by his definition.

That narrow-minded obsession with "new" is a black hole that sucks the "creativity" from you and prevents you from communicating via your music.

Besides, atonality and "experimentalism" are so passé that it's not even funny. There are people who are desperately grasping at those 50-yr old concepts to bolster their own musical inadequacies. Which basically means that there's no REAL issue with "contemporary music vs. pop music".

There's some really crappy popular music that doesn't deserve to be heard as much as it does.

Likewise, there some incredibly crappy "new music" that certainly doesn't deserve to be promoted as heavily as it does.

Communication isn't about repeating the same thing over and over.
It's ALSO not about inventing a language no one will understand.