I hate pop music

Oh btw, I have absolutely no idea what color is in season now. that is an analogy. =/

Pop music is a state of mind.

Another brilliant statement from Rkmajora! Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by Rkmajora

Pop music is a state of mind.

You're a state of mind

Originally Posted by Rkmajora

Pop music is a state of mind.

Yeah, retardation.

Originally Posted by M_is_D

Yeah, retardation.

This was (again) unnecessary.

Can we really separate music into different ontological categories? I.e., this is deep and meaningful, this is shallow. Or does that sound like those goofy philosophers who try to ascertain ultimate reality amidst a perceived sea of illusion and say "This is real, this is true and the rest of the universe is crap!"

Didn't Stravinsky once say, "Music is incapable of expressing anything but itself"? What is harmony? Surely it exists outside of human activity, even that which is believed to have been conceived by human activity. Do you believe music is the essence of things like Wagner, and then, to insult a harmony, would be to insult some other things in the universe that emits that harmony with their vibration? Or are these the same things that the philosophers put in a separate ontological category from ultimate reality?

I think these are questions you should ask yourself, if you deem pop or any music unworthy. I say I like this and I don't like that, for the sake of having an argument, not because I fervently believe in the objective superiority of Wagner and Strauss' music

It is you who are painfully naive and humanistic, if you hold a true opinion for or against a harmony.

Originally Posted by gianluca

Fine if you think Mozart, Bach and Schubert (whom the real Wagner admired by the way) are dry (a painfully naive view if you ask me) or if you would rate Radiohead's work as good as or maybe even better than Bach or Beethoven. Undoubtedly, there are also people out there who would rate Britney Spears or Beyonce as musically talented as or maybe even more talented than Bach or Beethoven. To quote Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I personally believe that the level of musical depth and sophistication found in the greatest achievements by geniuses such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Debussy, Stravinsky, etc. is not to be found in any pop music and I may only hope that this view continues to be shared by many other people.

Are you sure? I know an awful lot about Wagner; he was found of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart but I never read or suspected Schubert, whom one of his earlier "enemies", Schumann, exalted. Chopin, perhaps, through Liszt, but I doubt Schubert.

Secondly, can we really call Wagner and early Stravinsky sophisticated? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the Forging Song or Firebird Suite?

I believe that, depth is not found in sophistication - it is found at the very center, downward and into, rather than up and away from.

Originally Posted by finrod

I also would sometimes rate Radiohead's work as good as or maybe even better than Bach or Beethoven.



Hmmmm, not so sure whether I agree with you here. Pieces can be both brilliant AND elegant, although maybe this is not always the case. But what else should I expect from somebody with the nickname "Wagner"??

I was saying, that brilliance = elegance, which is opposite primal.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Secondly, can we really call Wagner and early Stravinsky sophisticated? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the Forging Song or Firebird Suite?

Don't give away your ignorance....
The ballet Firebird is QUITE "sophisticated" and worthy of in-depth study.





The funniest thing in this "discussion" is that both sides are tossing accusations back and forth, and making the SAME mistakes they are accusing each other of making!

There is (let us stick to this word for now) "sophisticated" pop music, just like there is "less sophisticated" classical music.

The real distinction between the two "genres" has nothing to do with complexity, or sophistication of the harmonic or melodic material.

There is classical music for one or a few instruments, there is pop music that requires QUITE large an ensemble.

There is pop music that is quite developed and lengthy listening, there is classical that flies by in under 3 minutes.


The intention of the music should be where you examine any differences.

Johann Strauss waltzes, polkas, and gallops were meant to be danced to. They were "dance music". In a way, they were a form of "pop" music at that time. A bridge, if you will, between the concert stage and the real popular music of that time (which classical was NOT).

Unfortunately, I know very little contemporary pop music, and most of you would probably be shocked to know what pop music I actually DO listen to and enjoy. But I know that those songs I do listen to, I don't listen to the same way I listen to a symphony, or sonata, or concerto.

I don't expect a pop song to push me to introspect, to make me consider what it proposes. I expect it to make me feel things. And it does. I don't expect intellectual stimulation from it.

When I listen to contemporary classcial music, I expect to feel something. I expect to be pushed as well to SOME intellectual stimulation. To discover something new, something further, every time I hear it.

That's very different from my expectation of pop music.

Does that mean that pop music can't do that?

No.

It means that I just don't listen to that kind of pop.

Listen to Michel Fugain et le Big Bazaar... that's intellectual pop! The songs are fun, can be skimmed, but! if you listen closely, there's more. There's a message, there's something beneath the surface.

Is that any less of an achievement than a symphony?

Not in my opinion.

It's just a different KIND of achievement.
Why compare?

That was my only word on this topic, I will now let the children go back to their bickering. And I use the term "children" with a certain affection... I've been following this thread, and am amused that some of you are coming up with heavy musicological terminology yet not having the real academic baggage to defend the position you take.

In other words, for God's sake, just calm down, stop arguing for nothing, and go write some music... pop or classical, doesn't matter. Go express yourselves. THAT'S where it matters.

And with that I bid you all happy holidays.

michel

Originally Posted by Qccowboy

Don't give away your ignorance....
The ballet Firebird is QUITE "sophisticated" and worthy of in-depth study.

I did not mean it wasn't worthy of being studied or that it would not be liked by cosmopolitan gays who like to point out perceived inadequacies so they feel like social and intellectual superiors, but that, by Stravinsky's own philosophy, was not intended to be sophisticated in the sense of the word that gianluca was using it.

Originally Posted by Wagner

I did not mean it wasn't worthy of being studied or that it would not be liked by cosmopolitan gays who like to point out perceived inadequacies so they feel like social and intellectual superiors, but that, by Stravinsky's own philosophy, was not intended to be sophisticated in the sense of the word that gianluca was using it.

is that a slur?

if so, you've just meritted yourself an infraction.