Classical vs Popular music

I used to be under the impression that classical music is superior to popular music, for obvious reasons. One, there are all of the rules one should follow, and two, the length of time it takes to compose a piece and put together a performance.

Then again, when you listen to popular music, be it "pop", jazz, techno, rock, metal, or even country, and listen with a serious ear, one can pick up several interesting stylistic motifs, and moments of brilliance that exist just as much in classical music.

For example, some say that pop music is "simpler" then pop music, often saying that pop music is too "formulaic." But then again, aren't minuets, gigues, mazurkas, and all of those other Baroque and Classical dances "formulaic?" The A section ALWAYS going to the Dominant, etc.

Like, one can not say that one is superior to the other or not. They are just different. It takes just as much skill to come up with a catchy melody as it does to develop a motiv into something more. Although punk music, for example, relies on just 3 chords, 1,4,5, and even then mostly power chords, hardly will you find two punk songs that sound identical. There is much skill involved in developing those 3 songs into an original work.

Rap music, although not so much on the melodic side, is about getting the right inflection at the right time to achieve the desired affect. Instead of different pitches, the rapper creates emotion not just with the words, but with the SOUNDS of the words. For example, "I like big buts and I cannot lie." The way that the guy SAYS those words has that excited intensity. Big buts is staccato, and then he just slides into lie. There is also difference in pitch, but its more of a natural difference in pitch that can be found in talking then in single, divisible tones. Also, the selection and timing of samples takes as much skill as orchestration does for a symphony. But, just as in classical music, there are bad rap songs, and there are good rap songs.

In jazz, the past few decades have brought this style much more closer to classical than to pop, thanks to Johnny Coltrane and others, but there are several jazz compositions that are some of the most complex harmonizations in Western music. When every chord is a seventh and a ninth and beyond, resolutions that are common in classical music are forgotton, and it's the VOICING of the chord that's more important than the DIRECTION. Jazz started off in twelve bar blues and ragtime, but Johnny Coltrane, dare I say, can play Bach on the sax, metaphorically speaking. I'd recommend listening to Hugh Fraser's Concerto for Jazz Orchestra. Google it.

Heavy metal has had a history of seeing itself as "complex." I've gone on about this before. It is complex, and the composers and musicians have just as much skill in choosing their notes and their timbres to create the desired emotional effect - which, interestingly enough, is usually ANGER! But anyway, heavy metalists have often said that they've been influenced by the Romantics, so I won't go into them much.

Anyway, to conclude, classical music is a very complex artform to develop, but just as not everybody can write a good piece of classical music, not every garage band will make it big. Those that do make it big, have just as much talent as any other modern classical composer. Next time you turn on the radio, and listen to a top ten single, listen to it, and ask yourself, "Why is this such a popular song? Why do people like it so much?" It's not because it sucks.

It is true that classical musicians who hastily dismiss all popular music are in fact incorrect. There are numerous artists in popular styles who produce original, moving, and finely crafted works in thier respective styles that deserve serious listening.

The main problem with popular styles, of course, is that for every good piece of music produced, 10-20 bad ones are made. In other words, its harder to find good music in popular styles than in classical styles. Actually, I take that back. There is just as much crap in classical styles, the only difference is that history has weeded out most of that crap and left us with the masterworks and the great composers. There's no way that I believe all of the concert music written in the last 300 years was done by like 20 guys.

Mabye history will sort out the good popular music from the bad popular music - hopefully. Because artists like Radiohead, Portishead (lots of heads, huh?), and lots of others deserve some attention in the serious music world.

At my university, in the higher level music theory classes rock theory is taught manditorily. The final music theory course is devoted to studying 20th century music, both concert and popular-wise. I think its a good idea.

Well, with rap, their can actually be quite a bit of musical skill. Its often dismissed because its meant to be very simple. However, selecting good samples isn't really done much anymore. However, I believe you have a point with it, and I never really noticed before. I shall save your post, its quite interesting.

Um, poor choice of example at the end. Most top-ten singles are simply well-marketed. The really good "popular" music usually isn't all that popular!

Well, I actually have VERY strong feelings about popular vs. Art music. (By the way, I consider jazz "art" music). I think one of the worst problems with people that pass judgement on popular music is that they are trying to compare the different art forms on an equal level. That is not fair. It is also not fair for people who like popular music to say that art music is crap. It is a matter of perspective and intent.

I like to make an analogy. Popular music is like a cartoon or a sitcom while art music is like a full-length drama. Popular music is supposed to be lighter, immediate gratification. Art music is supposed to be enjoyed in more "layers". Popular music gets to the point quicker. You hear the words right away, in a simple way and they are often repeated many times. The rhythm is usually driving, and gets you dancing right away, etc... Art music is like reading a book. You have to pay attention to the characters and how they develop. The interactions are of extreme importance.

Which one is better? Cartoons of movies?

I don't know. I've watched horrible, simplistic cartoons. But I've also watched horrible, cliche and insipid movies. On the other hand I've also watched brilliant cartoons that have layers of humour and complex messages, even important social commentary. Same with movies. I've even watched high-quality movies that are light and very gratifying. Not to mention moods. Sometimes I'm in the mood to relax, to have a laugh for 30 mins and not have to think too hard. I love a cartoon then. Or even Jerry Springer! Sometimes I wanna watch "Schindler's List". Which is better?

It may be more realistic to say that they are different genres, and as such must be enjoyed differently. Also if people drop their superior attitudes about "their music" and check out other genres, they will enjoy "their music" even more. If the average person listens to more Beethoven maybe they will realize that a lot of the stuff on the radio is scraggy, and they will enjoy the remainder even more. If more "classical" people listen to popular music, they may decide that a lot of this art music is overblown, distant and artificial.

So let's open our minds and be more fair to ourselves and the music which we write off.

And above all, shut the hell up about Ligeti and 4:33!!!!

I find it difficult to draw a bounadry between different genres.

"Classical" music is art music in one form or another; popular music is a commodity. Whoever coined the term "music industry" got it about right. The music moguls know they have to keep it coming to stay in biz and that means marketing.

Most people here know that media and publicity management are more crucial than talent. The star(s) of a production have to look good on their videos/CD booklets and need charisma. Engineers look after problems with the musical delivery. Popular music is now sold as part of a package to include young fashion, language, the lot - a way of life.

The same tactics have been applied to classical genres with some success - you have to be a pretty boy or girl to get a big contract these days - the main difference is the celeb has to deliver the goods substantially. Even then, the engineers can make things right; the make-up, hairdressing, couture and market departments look after the rest.

But the big inroad has been crossovers like the Medieval Baebes and the string quartet 'Bond':

Here're the bond girls for those unfamiliar.

They can come play with for me any time. :D

Jazz is a very real art - can't claim to like it all but performers have to be good and improvisation is composition on the fly, an enviable skill as long as the practitioner doesn't practice specific improvisations.

So it isn't classical v popular for me; just what reflects or induces a particular mood at a given time.

M

ps,And the Medieval Baebes

it's been my experience that pop music doesn't have to be 'good' to be poplular, I heard a song the other day and the chord progression for the entire song was I IV V and there was no change whatsoever, and it was like the number 5 out of 10. To me, nearly all of pop music today is tiring and unenjoyable to listen to, but I will admit that there are some pop musicians who really do know how to write a good song. Eric Clapton, Enya, Eric Johnson, and Coldplay to name a few. But the problem in my experience is that music from groups such as Skillet, Relient K (ugh) and others that my friends constantly tell me are good, in my opinion, are nothing but Punks that just want to bang instruments and think they're cool. (I say again, ugh) and Static FM bothers the heck out of me cause the guy can't just seem to sing 2 words on a single breath. And another thing that bothers me as a guitarist is the fact that no one these days seems to know how to not just strum relentlessly.

well that's my little rant :D

Classical vs Popular music, Is one inferior or not?

If you can give me a precise definition of 'classical' music then I will tell you if one is inferior to the other.

Marcel

But is not art music a commodity as well? I mean, wasn't Haydn basically OWNED by his patron, to produce music for HIS occasions?

Composers are paid to compose music. But there is also just as many composers who are NOT paid to compose music.

The same thing can be said for popular music. Not all the time are the record producers telling the songwriters what they want. Often they have their own inspiration that they come up with.

Personally, my definition of art music is different from others. To me, all music is art. Some is pop art and some is high art.

But is not art music a commodity as well? I mean, wasn't Haydn basically OWNED by his patron, to produce music for HIS occasions?

Composers are paid to compose music. But there is also just as many composers who are NOT paid to compose music.

The same thing can be said for popular music. Not all the time are the record producers telling the songwriters what they want. Often they have their own inspiration that they come up with.

Personally, my definition of art music is different from others. To me, all music is art. Some is pop art and some is high art.

In fact, you're right to argue the case. As I said, I have difficulty drawing boundaries - nigh impossible. I confess guilt over using the somewhat waffly distinctions currently adopted by the industry around shared orientations on how to divide the marketing of music. It's an attitude, I suppose.

One can equally argue against music being a commodity at all which, at least from the market sense, requires a product (of some kind, on which a value can be put - I don't want to dissertate here so can you accept 'product' in its broadest sense?), so it's latent until it becomes a score, CD, download, concert, etc.

We probably all have our ways of classifying music into some kind of dualistic framework - you call them pop art/high art. I've heard high- and low- "brow". When speaking to non-musicians, I use "classical" to mean the stuff you find in a room on the right of the down-escalator at HMV's, Oxford Street.

I reckon you were winding people up with your original post but it's a talking point, fair enuf. I personally regard no genre as superior to another.

:w00t:

:w00t:

I try and avoid topics like this...and have really only one thing to say.

In every genre, there's musicians/composers who make artists of any other style look like amateurs. Listen to extended jazz orchestra works by Kenny Wheeler, Carla Bley, Maria Schenieder, Hugh Fraser (with whom I am studying! Excellent suggestion Monkey).... Or, singer-songwriters Rufus Wainwright, Tom Waits, Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen... Frank Zappa, John Lennon, Freddie Mercury, Sting, Jimi Hendrix...all of whom are undisputed musical geniuses (In my opinion). Is classical music better than pop? No. Was John Lennon more musically important than 'romantic composer #17'...you bet.

I look at it all as music, and today, the 'genre-line' has become so blurred, it simply ceases to exist. Most of Maria Schneider's stuff could be classified as chamber-jazz. Carla Bley writes frequently for 'non-improvising musicians'. Buckethead is a fantastic guitarist. Queen Latifah sings standards. So does Rod Stewart. Charlie Watts (of Rolling Stones fame) plays jazz. ...

....frig...I hate talking about this. I hope there's somebody who understands what I mean...I'm not sure I do.

...Nevermind. :P

Art music that's neither classical or jazz but is somewhat popular...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbxRDPkQvRU

Hugh Frazer ran the Interprovincial Jazz Camp in Ontario that I went to. He's a great guy.

I never really thought of jazz as "lowbrow" music or popular music. Mabye some jazz, but honestly its about as hard to find jazz lovers as it is to find classical lovers where I am.

I never really thought of jazz as "lowbrow" music or popular music. Mabye some jazz, but honestly its about as hard to find jazz lovers as it is to find classical lovers where I am.

Jazz started out as lowbrow music, but by the 1950s it had clearly transformed itself to highbrow. Once jazz reached the bebop era, it was no longer something to listen to idly; the listener had to make some effort to understand the music being played. Unlike most earlier jazz musicians, people like Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, and John Coltrane thought of their music more as art than as commodity.

I think it's particularly telling today that the community of jazz enthusiasts (at least around here!) overlaps more with classical listeners than with fans of any other genre of music.

So what's the difference between composing classical music an popular music? As I am involved in both of these genres, my experience is that if you compose a popular song, you are more likely to be the performer/recording artist as well. Believe me, I wish it wasn't that way. There are plenty of songs (if not all) that would sound a lot better if a professional rock band recorded them (rather than myself). I've also noticed that it's a lot less expensive to be a classical composer in this respect. All you need to compose is manuscript paper and possibly Finale or Sibelius. Also, when I record popular music, part of the composition process actually occurs within the recording/performing process. I'll either write one track at a time and see what else it needs, or I'll be collaborating with other musicians. Other than that, there isn't much difference between the styles as far as I can see.

In my opinion, classical music is definitely a higher form of music than pop music. If pop music is musical junk food, then classical music is musical haute cuisine. And if we can say, from a culinary perspective, that haute cuisine is superior to junk food, then we can also say that classical music is superior to pop music, from a musical perspective.

I don

What bothers me most about pop music is not just that it is simplistic, but that it has such a widespread cultural influence that it has changed the way people listen to music (which has become more superficial) and people

You state that in former times, classical music was popular music and that it was music for the masses up to the late 19th century. That

Popular music is, today, more popular than classical because it's very simple (and rather unoriginal) so the average listener's ear is more captivated by it. There's no complexity, no brilliant orchestration, no original chord progression, most of the time typical lyrics, and constant repetition. Some people told me the Beatles were geniuses, but I beg to differ. They say some of their lyrics are ingeniously different. Duh, they were on drugs. What about the supposed greatest riff ever, from Rolling Stones' Satisfaction? What's so darn special about it?

Pop and rock is all about riffs, melodic or rhythmic patterns repeted OVER and OVER again. This, of course, also happens in classical music (ostinato) but is treated quite differently.

About the hit songs monkeysinfezzes told us to hear. Well, I remember the top 1 from a few weeks ago, Bad Day, and it used I-IV-V, unoriginal lyrics, repetition, and it was really boring.

Now rap and hip hop: okay, call me racist (unless it's Eminem), but hip hop has some of the worst lyrics ever. You find a curse word in every line, or sexual innuendo, or materialistic thoughts. There is no melody, except in the chorus, and it's the most horrid melody ever.

Some Metal can reflect true angry feelings, but other bands which classify themselves as Metal are nothing but electronics with some guitars and a little screaming.

So, in my opinion, popular music can't be compared to a tenth of classical. There IS good and bad popular music, but even the good popular music isn't as good as classical.

A further thought that I had:

Yes, popular music is art. And there are some pretty creative people involved in popular music. As I said before, the most creative music in the popular genre is not necessarily the most popular - in fact it's rarely ever the most popular.

But also, it seems to me that popular music is more backward-looking than classical in many ways. While there is some harmonically complex popular music, what is quite striking to me is that what popular music classifies as radical or "experimental" is almost all stuff that was quite thoroughly explored by composers before 1850, and was fairly common practice by 1900...

What's telling for me is that popular artists would never be able to do what, say, film composers do, while film composers cross into the popular music idioms all the time. That alone says that classical music, especially classical music written for orchestra, requires greater skill in composition. On the other hand, I've heard some awful classical music, and I've heard some popular music that was very inspired and tasteful. While the skill question might be lopsided, inspiration's pretty much equal.

That said, more artists get to be household names in the popular biz without real skill. I bet you could name some bands whose music is totally devoid of originality, technical prowess, or even variety (while I like some of Collective Soul's stuff, many of their songs are carbon-copy), but take those who've gained notoriety in the classical world, and you'd be hard pressed to find a handful who are less than expert. That has to do with how musicians get known in each field - while popular music is more populist (based on what the public wants to hear), classical music is more elitist (based on what shows talent and impresses hopefully knowledgeable critics).

Yeah, it's true that film or art composers are way, way more skilled than most popular musicians. But there's a down side to the greatly expanded freedom of composers. Bad 'high' music can be really, really bad. Bad pop music is still based closely on the same two things as every other pop song; that's part of what makes it bad. But it's still recognizable and harmonically stable, even if it's really annoying.

I can think of one television composer who hasn't written anything original in about fifteen years, and who continues to be employed. The guy who does music for Law & Order. Same frickin thing, every episode: "Oh, look. Dead guy. **music #3**". Later: "Hey, person. Someone just killed our witness. **silence** **shot of dead witness** **music #3**". #1 is the opening theme, which does kick donkey. #2 is the 'duhn-duhn' thing, which also kicks donkey. #4 is transitional, just-before-something-bad-happens music. Four pieces of music = continued employment, and lots of money. Lucky turd-biscuit.

Television is often like that. It's not usual for a TV show to hire a full-time composer.

Some shows that do/did:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Firefly

Dead Like Me (though they also recycled a lot of music)

Well I think that classical music is greatly superior to pop/rock music.

Though these genres have their moments as well, classical music is much more meaningful and moving.