I hate pop music

Originally Posted by Jamie Whitmarsh

I think this is a worthless argument, as all music has merit, and to attempt to disparage that would require both an ego and an ignorance of extreme magnitude.

To paraphrase Orwell's famous "Animal Farm" line: all music has merit, but some genres have more merit than others.

Originally Posted by gianluca

I could easily write a well-crafted pop song that is more artistic, more musically interesting and less predictable than 99% of the pop ditties played on MTV, VH1 and all that crap.

You reckon?

I reckon it's probably a lot harder than you think.

Originally Posted by gianluca

To paraphrase Orwell's famous "Animal Farm" line: all music has merit, but some genres have more merit than others.

The only problem with your paraphrase is that "equal" is an unconditional state. Being equal can only mean one thing, therefore the facetious nature of Orwell's original quote is obvious.

"Merit", on the other hand, is quite subjective, as you have amply demonstrated in this thread. Why do you get to decide what has merit, more so than anyone else? Is your level of training such that it elevates you above the rest of the rabble?

Could someone please elaborate which pop music we're talking about (Country, R&B, Hip Hop, Rap, Alternative, Goth, etc, etc etc???)

I've heard some pretty elaborate symphonic clips on Kanye West's tracks. I've also heard some classical motifs coming from Linkin Park. Some pop music modulates a lot and changes themes.

Originally Posted by KSP

I've also heard some classical motifs coming from Linkin Park.

Hackneyed symphonic riffs do not classical music make.

While there are good music from every genre, I think the main difference here is the minimum skill required to be successful. It is easy for us to mention good, high quality pop artist. I have to admit that MOST of the people featured in MTV are very good indeed. However to be successful (I mean, to gain a world-wide recognition), the standard required in pop music world is much lower than in the classical world. Can anybody name a famous but non-talented classical musician?

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Hackneyed symphonic riffs do not classical music make.

Awww... shucks.... I was about to put a bunch of random appergios in my guitar solo and call it classical!

Originally Posted by fauzie

Can anybody name a famous but non-talented classical musician?

Hmmm.... a challenge. I guess the real question should be, does such a person exist?

Originally Posted by fauzie

While there are good music from every genre, I think the main difference here is the minimum skill required to be successful. It is easy for us to mention good, high quality pop artist. I have to admit that MOST of the people featured in MTV are very good indeed. However to be successful (I mean, to gain a world-wide recognition), the standard required in pop music world is much lower than in the classical world. Can anybody name a famous but non-talented classical musician?

Non-talented classical musicians? How about Yanni?

You see how ridiculous this is. Please stop putting yourselves up on a pedestal please.

Originally Posted by gms5287

Non-talented classical musicians? How about Yanni?

You see how ridiculous this is. Please stop putting yourselves up on a pedestal please.

hahaha
Well, by no stretch of the imagination can Yanni be considered a "classical" musician. The guy's a new-age hack.

The original point is still relatively valid. It DOES take less formal training to become a "success" (relatively speaking) in the pop world than in the classical world.

In the classical world, when people with little or no training become "successful" it is often because they were backed by someone else with a solid career already. For example, Andrea Bocelli backed and promoted by Pavarotti.

A caveat: the world of "opera" is not the same as that of composition.

And to be fair, you should probably not take into account anyone who had a successful career in popular music BEFORE making the jump to classical. Since obviously, they had a distinct advantage over someone starting from scratch. Likewise, "contest winners" are not really valid comparisons either (ie: Paul Potts).

Originally Posted by fauzie

...to be successful (I mean, to gain a world-wide recognition), the standard required in pop music world is much lower than in the classical world.

Not necessarily... Regarding Pop music, you're applying the standard to the wrong person. The 'artist' (I use the term loosely) is often little more than a puppet - selected for visual and personality appeal. *NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, Britney, Christina Aguilera (but that girl can sing!), Beyonce, et al. are all product of a highly sophisticated machinery that manufactures, refines and creates these Pop stars. Beyonce has no more control over the songwriting/production process than a F1 driver has over his engine. They get strapped in, and take the ride.

The true artists (and highly skilled ones at that) are the producers, and songwriters who masterfully craft the music for maximum exposure and ultimately, maximum financial income for all involved.

Not all Pop music is done this way, and there are certainly exceptions to the rule. BUT, the business is MASSIVE...as is the money being made.