I hate pop music

Some of my favorite compositionally worthy "pop" albums you should listen to (mostly through 60's-70's)

Anything Burt Bacharach
Anything Frank Zappa
Pet Sounds- The Beach Boys
Sgt. Pepper's- The Beatles
Eli And The Thirteenth Confession- Laura Nyro
In The Court Of The Crimson King- King Crimson
Chicago II- Chicago
Blue- Joni Mitchell
Close To The Edge- Yes
A Wizard, A True Star- Todd Rundgren
Dark Side of The Moon- Pink Floyd
Songs In The Key Of Life- Stevie Wonder
Aja- Steely Dan
Skylarking- XTC
Smile- Brian Wilson (best compositionally, imo)

I can't really take you THAT seriously when you use words like "farce", "supposed creativity" and other even worst in your posts. And here we were discussing if there are snob people in classical music! HA!

No, honestly, you are contradicting yourself and still discussing how more complex classical music is, comparing OK computer to Bachs St. Mathews Passion, etc. I will whole heartily agree with Robin to say that Ok Computer, which involves GREAT production value, is a really important work and top 10 records of all time, and blah blah and so on. In addition to that, are you aware that Radiohead (since you brought them up) are using techniques also used by Messiean? (for example "just" find it on youtube), or the ingenious 4/4 which surely does not sound like that in "pyramid song" (youtube again) and other things.

I mean, yes, in rather general terms I will agree that mos (if not 99%) of pop music is simpler. SO WHAT? Making a production like the ones you listen (or don't listen probably) on the radio or the telly, or youtube takes A LOT more than sitting down and coming up with harmony and form and pitches etc. You may dislike it, but the fact still remains: To get the sound you get from a pop record you need plenty of more than just a DECCA tree mic setup and an orchestra (or even worst a solo piano! ) I'd say that no matter how har Beethoven tried and no matter how big masterpieces are (which I do believe they are) Beethoven Sonatas for piano, are no more brainers than a grea pop song. And do remember that by todays standards in composition, harmony, counterpoint, etc, Beethoven is outdated composition wise! It's no longer revolutionary to add an intro to a Sonata, or extend th exposition or the development by a few hundred bars!

So,

Should originality count towards the "value" of a music piece? I mean, sure for the time it was ONE HECK of a piece of music, but afer 200 years I can't see it no longer as original, but rather as outdated or if you want... a museum piece of art. I'd dare to say that some pop songs sound much more original than any Beethoven piece of music NOWDAYS! (see what I mean?)

What you failed to address about my post (probably on purpose? Don't know... ???) is this:

Originally Posted by YOU

Finally I should stress that it’s not just the music itself that bothers me about pop music, it’s also the undeservedly huge cultural status pop music has acquired at the expense of classical music (which is thereby pushed into a “cultural ghetto”) that bothers me at least as much.

Contemporary music in large quantities SUCK BIG TIME! Believe me and ask anyone in here how much I enjoy contmporary concert hall music, and how I "preach" about new techniques etc, hoenstly believe me!

But even with my dealings with contemporary concert hall music, I can't say I enjoy most pieces to that broad genre! The problem does not lie that pop is so much more popular (deservely if you ask me, since it is, as you say, simpler and thus more approachable with it's tonal techniques), but also because contemporary scene is suffering heavily from autism. Go to a concert (at least in the uk), organised by BMIC, or SPNM, or whichever org and watch the performers know 90% of the audience, by their first names! Hillarious and sad at the same time!

I do want to say "something" to the audience and want to communicate (without of course claiming that music is a language). I will stop nowhere to do that, even if it means using a C maj in a guitar! If I can't understand the huge serial techniques of Boulez (bless he be...), or can't really value anymore the flungers and techniques that Ligeti used (only because with a simple plug-in you do the same thing), why can't I try my own thing, any way, any kind of way?

Do note that those composers who are more... tonal, if you will, or ... easier, are much more popular (Glass for example, or Takemitsu) that those with amazingly complex ideas and compositions (Finnissy, Birthwistle, Carter even).

Simple: Don't blame pop music for the decline of classical music, blame:
A. The companies
B. The composers and their aunanistic approaches to the scene
C. All educational fascilities that hand out PhDs, and force academic approaches (which should be locked into the institutions anyway) to the outside!
D. Schools

After all, if you feel jealous (that I do feel jealous!) with the success of pop music, why not see what's the fault with YOU, instead of blaming and see how you can follow certain ideas and see where it'll get you? I mean, if exposure means something (which I do think it does), I sure try to make myself known and my name known. Etc...

I'm personally of the opinion that music is music, its either good or bad, be it rock, jazz, classical or nose-flute.

There are crappy pop artists, and wonderful pop artists, there are crappy classical artists and wonderful classical artists.
for every Beethoven the classical world has seen it has had dozens of "paris hiltons" and other wannabes that have been forgotten since because they sucked. likewise, there are some horrible acts in pop music out there at the moment, mostly created to make a quick buck by large corporations, but we also have great songwriters like Carol King.

and that's true of every art form, look at painting, we see allot of old artists, but how many at any one time period and even less in a single region during a small time period, yet we look today and there are seemingly more painters than ever before, most of them are bad. Time forgets people who are not good in their field, so much so that after a while, it seems like there was a time that no bad could be done when in fact it was as bad as today, but history forgot the fluff and kept the important stuff.

unless I really try, I can't generally think of what crappy bands were "it" a few years ago, but I seem to never have trouble remembering those masterpieces, be it classical music jazz, pop or klingon drinking song.

it's okay for you to not like a certain style of music, every one of us does the same, what's not correct is to say that everything in that genre "minus a few exceptions" is bad, because thats true of EVERYTHING in art.

most classical music written is plain bad, but it doesn't survive the decades and centuries like the great stuff does so we don't see it as much.

but walk into any conservatory, musical academy etc, find where the composers nest, listen to the "great music" they are doing, most of it is garbage. the only reason they aren't being played on MTV is because they don't have enough money for breast implants or can't dance ... or both.

anyways... its 4am, im working in 3 hours, was trying to sleep and couldn't, although after writing this boring repetitive post, I'm thinking I'll be able to sleep

*Throws more fat in the fire*

Originally Posted by George Butler, vice-president and executive producer for CBS Records

Jazz today is caught in a vicious cycle in which radio and recordings have programmed a simple-minded music to appeal to a mass market -- the lowest common denominator. In so doing, they have cultivated an audience that is prejudiced against and largely incapable of comprehending anything more substantial than that which is regularly programmed for it. Commercial radio won't play jazz because the audience doesn't like it; the audience doesn't like it because it hasn't been exposed to it enough to begin to understand it.

Feel free to swap 'jazz' with any genre except 'pop-music'. ...
...

heh...

Exactly my thoughts!

I feel like I can't express myself since so many other people are saying what I want to say...

Most of the counterarguments of those disagreeing with me boil down to people trying to convince me that good pop music does exist (with some adding that there’s also crappy classical music).

Read more carefully what I said. I never said that all classical music is superior to (or more complicated than) all pop music. Besides, I have already stated that I agree that there is some good (maybe even great) pop music out there, but that this music can only be considered good or great compared to other pop music. Yes, according to pop standards, Radiohead is a great and highly creative band with fresh and original ideas, breaking conventions and exploring new territories, yet in my opinion their creativity pales in comparison to the creativity evident in the truly great masterpieces of classical music. Sorry, but you simply can’t put Radiohead on the same level as Bach or Beethoven in terms of musical creativity and genius, that would be a joke.

So, I do agree that there is some good pop music out there, but that doesn’t mean that I am contradicting myself (Nikolas!). The fact that there are exceptions to the rule, doesn’t change the rule. So I will repeat what I see as "the rule": In general, classical music is far more advanced, refined, sophisticated and intellectually and emotionally challenging than pop music. So far, I haven't heard one convincing argument against that, apart from the mention of some exceptional examples of relatively good pop music. I believe there’s nothing unfounded or overgeneralizing about the statement above. Come on, it’s something you can hardly deny or you're fooling yourself, but of course that doesn’t exclude the existance of exceptions. (Similarly, one can state that the Dutch - statistically the tallest people in the world - are taller than the Japanese - among the shortest people in the world –but that doesn’t mean that there are no short Dutch people or tall Japanese people....)

But you are still discussing about complexity in classsical music and simplisity in pop music, while you said (unless mistaken, cause I'm on a really slow connection these days and can't look back) that it doesn't make difference if it's complex or not and gave examples about Schubert actually! You are contradicting yourself exactly to that point: you need to decide if more complex music makes "better music" or not. You do need to read more carefully to what the rest of the people say in here (including my own posts), I think

And you still compare Radiohead to Bach Beethoven and the rest: WHY?!?!?!??? Are they not different? Does it matter in the end if one is "better" than the other, and why should Radiohead be more advanced, refined and sophisticated than classical music anyways? I feel tons more challenged by Radiohead than I've done for most contemporary music I've heard in the past 4 years... go figure I guess...

Alan, your calling me a snob to me seems like a sign of argumentative weakness...

Nikolas, let me briefly discuss some of your points.,

I mean, yes, in rather general terms I will agree that mos (if not 99%) of pop music is simpler. SO WHAT?

I wouldn’t have any problem with that, if pop music wouldn’t have this terribly overrated cultural status. Note that I am not saying that everyone should listen to classical music instead, but I feel that in general, classical music doesn’t get the status, attention and recognition it deserves. Pop music gets so much attention that even those who might potentially take an interest in and appreciate classical music get so little exposure to classical music that they eventually never get the chance to learn to enjoy it. Furthermore, I feel there’s something unfair about a society in which a spoiled pop artist with hardly any musical talent may earn tons and tons of money for performing just one infantile pop song whereas an accomplished classical musican with a musical talent that is so much huger and rarer may be struggling to make a living in music.

I mean, sure for the time it was ONE HECK of a piece of music, but afer 200 years I can't see it no longer as original, but rather as outdated or if you want... a museum piece of art. I'd dare to say that some pop songs sound much more original than any Beethoven piece of music NOWDAYS! (see what I mean?)

I sort of see what you mean, but then, I think the originality of a piece always has to be judged in relation to the time in which it was created; when Beethoven wrote his late works such as, say, the Grosse Fuge, it sounded so shockingly unlike anything heard before, so judging this piece in relation to other works created in that time, it is highly, highly original. Of course, it doesn’t sound so shocking anymore to our ears nowadays, but that’s simply because we live in a different time and a lot of things have happened in music since Beethoven.


Contemporary music in large quantities SUCK BIG TIME!

I strongly disagree with that. There’s crappy music being produced in all genres, in all times. I don’t think there’s relatively more crap being produced within the field of contemporary music. It may seem like this because: (a) we are not yet so familiar with the language of most contemporary music – once we get more familiar with it, we will start to enjoy more and more contemporary music; and (b) a lot of crap from earlier periods (baroque, classical, romantic) has already been filtered out since the crappy pieces didn’t stand the test of time. One can just as well find a lot of good music and masterpieces within the field of contemporary concert hall music (think of Boulez’ Pli selon pli, Berio’s Sinfonia, Ligeti’s Grand Macabre, Xenakis’ Pleiades, Birtwistle’s Mask of Orpheus, Stockhausen’s Licht, Reich’s Music for 18, to mention but a few).

I agree that schools and education are a not to be overlooked part of the problem.
.

damn nikolas, you reply too fast I can't keep up with your speed of replying...