# Why didn't classical music create rock'n'roll just better in XXth century?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

First some terminology clarification for the title:

By "classical music" I intend western classical music tradition and all the music that directly stems from it.

By "rock'n'roll" I intend not just rock'n'roll per se, but pretty much whole popular music tradition of the 20th century... which includes even jazz, but also rock, pop, R'N'B, soul, reggae, metal, techno, dance, trance music, and pretty much all electronic dance music, latino, country, etc... pretty much everything.

By "rock'n'roll just better" (or RJB for brevity), I intend a hypothetical type of music which would in some way be similar to the previously described popular music tradition of the 20th century, only way better, more sophisticated, etc... in which people educated in classical music tradition would take an active role and shape the history of it.
In this world established musical institutions and composers would release musical blockbusters Hollywood style every so often that would be biggest musical sensations of its day, causing mass hysteria, fanatic supporters, gatherings of large crowds, etc... Imagine classically informed symphony length conceptual rock albums, or why not symphonies themselves, that would make liberal use of electric guitars, electronics, etc... The world in which people would anticipate with passion the new symphony of composer this and that, like they waited for a new Beatles record.

IMO that path would be normal, that path would be expected, and that's the path that pretty much occurred in most of the other arts (perhaps excluding visual modern art). This is the path that occurred in literature, where high brow literature is still widely read and popular, and Nobel prize winners in literature are international superstars, and almost worshiped in their own country.

Our actual history of classical music in 20th and 21st century, on the other hand, is pretty much an anomaly... it's not what anyone would imagine. It's kind of unfortunate failure.

Every futurist who happens to be into music from the early 20th century would have wet dreams about live TV broadcast of the world premiere of some new, cutting edge symphony from the Carnegie Hall... And if he could travel to the future he'd certainly be disappointed that not only such broadcasts are incredibly uncommon, but also, no one really cares.

Normal situation would be, for example, 2 billion peoples from all across the world glued to their TV, watching live broadcast of the contemporary equivalent of the premiere of Beethoven's Ninth, followed by weeks long commentary and detailed scrutiny of how this and that musician performed, and even how well dressed was the lady playing the violin, etc... This stuff would fill the tabloids, etc... It would be similar to the attention given to Oscars.

The closest classical music got to this kind of success in 20th century was probably with Carmina Burana, that managed to enter the collective unconscious and got burned into our brains... This is also the proof that 20th century classical music has this ability to make such an effect... if only it wanted to do it.

I'll end this with a question.

Imagine you lived in such previously described alternative universe. And then someone told you... dude you know, the development of classical music in our world is very unfortunate... Wouldn't it be much better to have a world in which composers don't give a damn about audience, nor do people care about classical music... Imagine a world in which classical music is mostly just an academic and technical subject, in which composers make pieces not to move the souls, but to make proofs of concepts, like whether music can make sense without tonality, and what happens if you remove the rhythm from the music as well. Imagine such a world in which composers mostly just engage in this type of mental mast***** and usually those who break most of the rules of previous tradition to the point of depriving music of pretty much anything that makes it music... like not just melody and rhythm, but also the performance itself, they get the biggest praise and they are considered heroes. For example in that strange world, a composer who makes a piece without any musical performance, lasting 4 minutes and 33 seconds, where you are just supposed to listen to whoever is coughing in the audience and to pretend that you're listening to music, such guy gets praise and he's a considered a revolutionary and a hero.

What would you tell to that person? Of course you'd tell him something like:
"Dude, you're crazy... we're lucky not to live in such a crazy world... No chance I'd give up the world premiers of symphonies that shake the entire world, let alone, witty commentaries in anticipation and after such an event... We're indeed the lucky ones. I really don't know what they smoke in the world that you just described... I can't fathom how it would even be possibile"

Well, unfortunately, WE, are not the lucky ones, we live in that crazy unfathomable world where who knows what they smoke... and where 4:33 of audience coughing is considered a masterpiece.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

You seem to be talking about a lot of different things in the same post, including a lot of tired clichés that have been answered multiple times before...

Anyway, there are many classically (and non-classically) trained musicians in popular music (rock, pop, etc). But when these people write rock or pop music (regardless of its complexity), then by virtue of their style they are not called classical composers. Even experimental, progressive and avant-garde music in those genres are not considered classical music, so people don't make the association.

In other words, the type of composer you're trying to describe _exist_, but you don't think of them as classical composers.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

[Comment withdrawn]


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Relatedly I could ask another question.

So far I was mostly asking why didn't classical music create something like rock'n'roll in sense of its popularity and impact.

Now I am asking why classical composers haven't on their own discovered what is musically essential to many popular music genres...

It's like they said... tonality is exhausted, it hasn't much more to offer... yet it seems that if rock'n'roll didn't happen on its own, they would never discover that music like that can exist.

I mean from purely musical viewpoint, there's a lot to be studied about many popular music genres, and to learn from it, as purely musical concepts, novel musical approaches and ideas, that can subsequently be used in all music, classical and popular alike.

If we treated music like science...

I want to say that popular music genres from 20th century, probably made more scientific discoveries and contributions than 20th century classical music... and classical music tradition, that's supposedly superior was unable to make such discoveries on its own... why?

examples of such discoveries:

- the use of chords in rock music
- the anatomy of guitar solos
- jazz improvisation
- various latino rhythms
- more advanced types of electronic dance music (I think they have a lot in common with minimalism)
- the use of guitar distortion
- all kinds of production and post production effects... like "wall of sound"
- the specific sound of pretty much any genre...
- experimentation with more than just notes itself... focus on mood, atmosphere, production, etc...

I want to say that from purely musical viewpoint, modern popular music has been incredibly fertile and productive... and I really don't know why similar developments didn't occur in classical music itself... and also why classical music pretty much ignores such developments... (does it consider them trivial, or already covered by what happened in the past of classical music perhaps?)

I really don't know... But as a layperson I think there was more creative output in popular music in last 100 years or so, than in classical music, yet classical music tradition still considers itself as superior or as the only serious authority on music so to say...


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Here's an example of a complex popular music song, that is IMO a product of musical genius on par with classical music masterpieces, and that has enough musical novel material to inform long studies and to have many books published about it.






Why...

- there's original way of combining melody and rhythm
- original solo
- orignal instrumentation used (electric organ) in a very specific way
- mood it creates
- fantastic use of drums

etc...

If written as sheet music this whole song... it would be very advanced and long piece if sheet music with lots of notions and tiny details on drumming, vocals, melody, etc...

It would be more complex than most classical music pieces.

But this kind of song can't be composed on paper. It can only be written down on the paper after it's composed in jam sessions etc... that's where conceivableness comes to play... first you need to conceive it... like they did by playing it until they reached perfection, and only then it can written down.

For me this proves several incredibly avant-garde concepts such as:

- music might be better if not composed by just one person... one person wouldn't be able to create such a song... it's a product of their collaborative effort... they playing together adds to magic, that's simply impossible to happen with one person composing it on their own

- also improvisation and simply playing until perfection is reached adds to magic, such direct access to unconscious mind and refinement of the song is simply impossible when you just sit and write...

I personally think such concepts and ideas are more avant-guarde and revolutionary than atonality, or 4'33'' but no one talks about it in classical music community.

I'm certain that certain subtle rules popular musicians abide by in their performance... if we wanted to write them down explicitly, it would require a very complex musical notation, similar to Brian Ferneyhough and new complexity.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

First, for the majority of people, the emergence of popular music spoke to them in ways classical didn’t and couldn’t, and broke new and exciting ground. This wasn’t really “unfortunate” so much as inevitable due to cultural and societal changes (including the empowerment of ordinary people as consumers of the art, instead of a relatively narrow upper-class audience).

Second, writing novel-length posts isn’t doing your argument any favors.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I am not sure if I understand the original idea but there seem to me at least two ideas being mixed together:
1) About a "fusion" of some (widely understood) classical and some (widely understood) popular music. 
This actually exist in several forms. Most of them are not very interesting (e.g. Queen or other "Classic" Rock played with a symphony orchestra), but maybe some "prog rock", some film music or some musicals are more interesting/successful. In any case there is some such fusional music you could try out.

2) About the history of music in the 20th century. I do not find the idea very plausible that music from the Western classical tradition should have come up with something similar to Rock. Rock is clearly rooted in several types of nonclassical music (Blues, Broadway, whatnot). Classical never really showed a tendency to develop in such a direction, why should it? The closest thing might be some pieces by Weill, Gershwin and others from the 1920s-40s. Gershwin came from Jazz/Broadway and while I am not really convinced by his Rhapsody and piano concerto, I think "Porgy and Bess" works. Weill came from neoclassical modernist anti-romanticism and some of his pieces also work quite well (most are a bit flawed and hard to produce successfully in practice) but both are a far cry from Rock and while as popular as something like Carmina Burana, not close to the popularity of Rock/popular music.
(In the mid/late 19th century one could say that Offenbach and the Strauss family achieved similarly succesful fusions but the dance/operetta/vaudeville music of their time was still much closer to classical, so there was not such a chasm to bridge)
Generally, with a few exceptions the development of classical music in the late 19th and 20th century was towards the less popular, not more popular. Whereas mass-media driven popular music was the music in history most strongly designed for mass appeal and the lowest common denominator. This gap started some time in the 19th century and with very few exceptions got only wider.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*Why didn't classical music create rock'n'roll just better in XXth century?*

Because Classical music is the product of western European culture and Blues, Jazz, R&B, and Rock & Roll are products of the African American culture in the United States.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Progressivism confuses people, creating an illusion that things always get better and better as everyone just rock and roll and be fit in. Pop music basically is derivative from all classical genres of music, to be exactly is diminutive of classicals, music had reached the highest pinnacle already in 18th century in terms of harmony and the most ethical functionalities: education, poetical expression, enjoyment, recreation. Modern pop has in their purpose of production the money, the hyping, advertisement, propaganda, for people which can not extricate their mind from progressivism can never see the obvious sickness of modern time.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

The entire prog genre, and most of its subgenres, does much of what you are suggesting. Much of prog eschews the blues roots of the rest of rock, and uses classical as a major influence. Unless it also incorporates some traditional jazz.

One would be hard pressed to find much, if any, blues based influences in King Crimson, Van Der Graaf Generator, or YES, etc, but it is pretty easy to find Western Classical references and influences.

Then, there is all the other Western European countries that strongly embraced the prog ethos, but have even less ties to blues than England.

Italy for one of the better known examples, with their affinity to classical music, and their mandatory music study in public schools, produced so much great prog (past and present), with even more ties to classical, and vanishingly little ties to "rock and roll" and blues. Premiata Forneria Marconi, Banco, Il Balletto di Bronzo, Deus ex Machina, Yugen...I could go on for pages with great Italian bands. Not to mention, that the large majority of Italian prog bands, have multiple members that are conservatory trained.

Most of the rest of Western Europe followed suite.

Here is an example of the Italian band, Banco, with their album "di Terra". This is instrumental (not normal for them, since their vocalist is so good), with an orchestra.






And even less like rock 'n roll, and closer to classical music, is the avant-prog* subgenre of prog. Their major influences are classical composers of the mid to late 20th century, and 21st century.

Bands like: Thinking Plague, Universe Zero, Art Zoyd, Henry Cow, Aranis, etc.

Art Zoyd






Aranis






* progressive music website, Progarchives, describes avant-prog like this:

Avant-prog is generally considered to be more extreme and 'difficult' than other forms of progressive rock, though these terms are naturally subjective and open to interpretation. Common elements that may or may not be displayed by specific avant-prog artists include:

- Regular use of dissonance and atonality.
- Extremely complex and unpredictable song arrangements.
- Free or experimental improvisation.
- Fusion of disparate musical genres.
- Polyrhythms and highly complex time signatures.

Most avant-prog artists are highly unique and eclectic in sound and consequently tend to resist easy comparisons.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Simon Moon said:


> The entire prog genre, and most of its subgenres, does much of what you are suggesting.


Yes, and the fact that prog rock never became widely popular shows why OP's hypothetical never came to pass.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

mossyembankment said:


> Yes, and the fact that prog rock never became widely popular shows why OP's hypothetical never came to pass.


The OP is tripping indeed... but prog rock was fairly popular in the early 70s.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Why would early 20th cent European high art willingly have adopted African melodic and rhythmic ideas, and even if they had, what makes you think white classical composers could have created something comparable to the various musical styles that became the foundation of 20th century popular music?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

@Simon Moon

examples of prog and avant-prog that you shared are really interesting and I enjoyed listening to them.

I'm just wondering why such works can't be accepted as classical works?

And does the term "classical" still hold any connotation of value or quality, or it's purely a technical term for music published as sheet music rather than in form of recordings?

But isn't this definition of classical music extremely limiting, given the state of 21st century technology where sound recording is way more suitable for free expression, than being limited to writing sheet music?


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

ZJovicic said:


> I'm just wondering why such works can't be accepted as classical works?


Even if it was called "classical music" your vision of a 2 billion people audience still wouldn't materialise, as prog-rock is a niche genre these days.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

'Classical music' is an 'umbrella term' that doesn't work super well in many instances, especially at the extremes, since it just doesn't make a lot of sense to unite under the same realm all the music that it tries encompass... 

So we just accept which music is usually included as classical and which music isn't, regardless of reason.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

chipia said:


> Even if it was called "classical music" your vision of a 2 billion people audience still wouldn't materialise, as prog-rock is a niche genre these days.


Well if you count Stairway To Heaven, Kashmir, Bohemian Rhapsody, Another Brick in The Wall and the likes as prog, then 2 billion audience isn't too far fetched.

Just this video has 1.3 billion views just on Youtube






This has 533 million:


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

ZJovicic said:


> Well if you count Stairway To Heaven, Kashmir, Bohemian Rhapsody, Another Brick in The Wall and the likes as prog, then 2 billion audience isn't too far fetched.
> 
> Just this video has 1.3 billion views just on Youtube


You said 2 billion of live audience... which is very different from 2 billion views on Youtube over more than 10 years.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Livly_Station said:


> You said 2 billion of live audience... which is very different from 2 billion views on Youtube over more than 10 years.


You're right... 2 billion for live music is probably non-realistic for any kind of music... namely because you can record it, and if you miss the live, you're not that much worse off... unlike the finals of World Cup.

But 1.3 billion views just on YouTube is still impressive for a song that is 46 years old.

What I wanted to say is that songs like these have become household names, pretty much everyone (at least in more developed countries) have heard them, or even knows them well, unless they lived under a rock.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

It's very impressive how popular were these oldschool rock groups and how much their popularity has endured... but how can you expect the same from what we call classical music?! Those bands appealed to that generation's audience because they were doing a _new_ kind of music that reflected the spirit of that age, helping to build the cultural identity of that generation. Not being old music was the point, and the music _is_ different from traditional classical music in many ways -- in form, harmony, instrumentation, lyrics, tropes, attitude and appearence --, even if we can also find some classical heritage here and there. And we shouldn't forget to mention that popularity is not only about the music -- but image, looks, identity, promotion, marketing, etc.

And there's also a very complicated discussion (complicated because it's not purely musical, but social) of how to define the genre of each music. At the end of the day, we don't consider prog rock as classical music, and we don't consider some simpler pieces of the 19th century as popular music... and to discuss why is that is almost a pointless endeavour.

If your only wish was that popular music was more "sophisticated", then I tell you that there's plenty of sophistication in popular music for the last 70 years -- both in niche genres and more mainstream genres. We just don't call those classical music.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

ZJovicic said:


> Well if you count Stairway To Heaven, Kashmir, Bohemian Rhapsody, Another Brick in The Wall and the likes as prog, then 2 billion audience isn't too far fetched.
> 
> Just this video has 1.3 billion views just on Youtube


I'm still not sure what you are getting at. What is going to change if we classify Queen and Led Zeppelin as "classical music"?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> It's very impressive how popular were these oldschool rock groups and how much their popularity has endured... but how can you expect the same from what we call classical music?! Those bands appealed to that generation's audience because they were doing a new kind of music that reflected the spirit of that age, helping to build the cultural identity of that generation. Not being old music was the point, and the music is different from traditional classical music in many ways -- in form, harmony, instrumentation, lyrics, tropes, attitude and appearence --, even if we can also find some classical heritage here and there. ...


But the very same thing can be said about Beethoven, Wagner, the Second Viennese School, Stravinsky...

I don't think it's any accident that rock (and indeed most other pop genres) took off like a rocket with the rise of mass communication, and also rock coincided with the postwar "baby boom". It was youth music, even though now we have the c. 80 year old surviving Stones touring or planning tours. (I think someone brilliantly called that "Civil War re-enactments for the counterculture".)


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

chipia said:


> I'm still not sure what you are getting at. What is going to change if we classify Queen and Led Zeppelin as "classical music"?


The meaning of "reality"? :lol:


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

dissident said:


> But the very same thing can be said about Beethoven, Wagner, the Second Viennese School, Stravinsky...


Beethoven, Wagner, etc, still have their "everlasting" popularity because -- besides their quality -- they were culturally relevant at their time, since classical music itself was relevant there and those composers were at its summit. So history was kind to them.

I don't think their popularity is replicable in our times, and that's not simply the fault of modern/contemporary composers as detractors like to believe. The world changed too much -- our society is not the same at all, power dynamics and economy are structured differently, new technology impacted our behavior, marketing is on another level, and even the pace of human routine changed dramatically. In this new world, people (and the industry) have the power, and they chose a new kind of music to consume which is more proper to our environment, and it's not classical music. Thus, any artist who want mass popularity will compose for these popular genres and dress themselves in a fashionable way -- meanwhile, people who compose for other genres will appeal to a niche (which is great), but won't be super famous and socially relevant.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> I don't think their popularity replicable in our times, and that's not simply the fault of modern/contemporary composers as detractors like to believe. The world changed too much -- our society is not the same at all...


Yeah but part of that change was the widening gulf between artist and audience. The art and philosophy of the artists changed.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

dissident said:


> Yeah but part of that change was the widening gulf between artist and audience. The art and philosophy of the artists changed.


Well, this trend started in the romantic period when people started to propagate the belief that the _purpose_ of an artist was to push the limits of Art itself. A lot of great music came from that (and still do), but the cost was alienating the audience who couldn't follow...

Besides that, classical music was never completely popular and accessible to all audiences. We just had a more aristocratic society in the past, so their taste was considered good taste, and their music was more relevant because it was the music of people in power. Now, however, we live in a new world where -- because of capitalism -- being _truly popular_ is more relevant than appealing to the economic elites.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> Well, this trend started in the romantic period when people started to propagate the belief that the _purpose_ of an artist was to push the limits of Art itself. A lot of great music came from that (and still do), but the cost was alienating the audience who couldn't follow...


Or who didn't think it was worth the candle.


> Besides that, classical music was never completely popular and accessible to all audiences. We just had a more aristocratic society in the past, so their taste was considered good taste, and their music was more relevant because it was the music of people in power. Now, however, we live in a new world where -- because of capitalism -- being _truly popular_ is more relevant than appealing to the economic elites.


I don't think it has anything to do with "capitalism" really, beyond more leisure time for the "bourgeoisie". And the effect of *that* really was piano and ballet and violin lessons for people who probably wouldn't have been anywhere near such things a couple of centuries earlier.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The developing middle class loved to make music already in the 16th century. Both Lutheranism and later the Counterreformation promoted music not only in church but also at home because it was a better pastime in their view than gambling or dancing.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> The developing middle class loved to make music already in the 16th century. Both Lutheranism and later the Counterreformation promoted music not only in church but also at home because it was a better pastime in their view than gambling or dancing.


Or because people were able to get involved in things that had historically been out of their reach. My parents could afford to get me a piano and piano lessons. Not top of the line, but sufficient and the best they could do, for which I'm eternally grateful. Their parents wouldn't have been able to do the same. It wasn't really dictated from above by anything other than my desire to learn music. These sociopolitical "explanations" can become a bit much.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

> I don't think it has anything to do with "capitalism" really, beyond more leisure time for the "bourgeoisie". And the effect of *that* really was piano and ballet and violin lessons for people who probably wouldn't have been anywhere near such things a couple of centuries earlier.


Capitalism was very impactful in music and art -- especially as the music industry started to grow and grow and became a billionaire market. The incentives inherent to this new system led to a change of paradigm where the most valuable music is considered to be the one which sells the most. More importantly, the entire _production process_ evolved to be more industrial and failproof -- first, the songwriting itself became much more formulaic, but that's only in order to be safe enough to promote it, which is the most important part of the process for the success of the song, but demands a lot of money for marketing, distribution, scheduling, media, and building the public image of the artist (who needs charisma and appeal).

I don't say that to be negative and pessimistic -- I actually like pop music, and there's a little bit of room for spontaneity, creativity and surprise... but the industry is what it is, and this industry is a product of full-blown capitalism.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> Capitalism was very impactful in music and art -- especially as the music industry started to grow and grow and became a billionaire market. The incentives inherent to this new system led to a change of paradigm where the most valuable music is considered to be the one which sells the most. More importantly, the entire _production process_ evolved to be more industrial and failproof -- first, the songwriting itself became much more formulaic, but that's only in order to be safe enough to promote it, which is the most important part of the process for the success of the song, but demands a lot of money for marketing, distribution, scheduling, media, and building the public image of the artist (who needs charisma and appeal).
> 
> I don't say that to be negative and pessimistic -- I actually like pop music, and there's a little bit of room for spontaneity, creativity and surprise... but the industry is what it is, and this industry is a product of full-blown capitalism.


That's a chicken and egg situation though. Popular music has always been, well, "popular" music. Mass media amplified it. That "paradigm" may be running out of steam too, given the feeling of sameness and staleness of pop culture in general (remake after sequel after prequel after remake...) I think that's more of a creative impasse than just following the market, because from what I've seen interest in (for example) Hollywood products is declining.
On the other hand do you know how many recordings of the Goldberg Variations have been released over the past decade? I don't, but it seems there's a new one every other day.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

dissident said:


> That's a chicken and egg situation though. Popular music has always been, well, "popular" music. Mass media amplified it. That "paradigm" may be running out of steam too, given the feeling of sameness and staleness of pop culture in general (remake after sequel after prequel after remake...)
> On the other hand do you know how many recordings of the Goldberg Variations have been released over the past decade?


"Popular music" was never so massively popular like in the last 70 years -- and it was much more regional before instead of national or even global. Also, as far as I know, no popular artist became rich and powerful until rock and roll changed the game. So pop music became a completely different beast compared to folk music, and alongside all other social changes it led to a new paradigm.

And let's not be naive thinking that things are changing now because it's still the same thing now that we're in the age of streaming -- popular is striving as always. There's no _Goldberg Variations_ threatening Olivia Rodrigo, and you're using the example of a well established work with a steady audience (instead of being a new work which needs to build its reputation), so _Goldberg_ is just a safe product for the classical market and nothing more. Besides, even though we may call it "popular", it's not breaking into the Billboard Top 200.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

There was no commercial "popular" music in the modern sense before the 19th century. There was folk music, there were excerpts/reductions of classical music, there were other kinds of functional music like dance music, church hymns etc. But there was not big business around this. Even the early popular music of the late 19th and early 20th century can hardly be compared in impact to what happened after mass media like records and radio. They obviously changed everything and any popular music of the last 80 years is dependent on these media and in turn shaped by them (the 3 min. playing time of early record sides and later vinyl singles etc.) 
This is a radical change compared to all eras before but almost nobody alive (unless they grew up in a third world country) can remember an earlier time. So it also shaped our conception of music and many people have a very distorted view of past classical music (e.g. Mozart being the "Mick Jagger of his age" or such nonsense). I'd say the idea entertained by the threadstarter that classical music in the stage of the early-mid 20th century should have developed into some fusion with rock is also influenced by a misconception of the history and tradition of pre-mass-media (classical) music.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> I'd say the idea entertained by the threadstarter that classical music in the stage of the early-mid 20th century should have developed into some fusion with rock is also influenced by a misconception of the history and tradition of pre-mass-media (classical) music.


I think the OP has a point though. Many past composers drew on the popular / folk traditions of their time, e.g. Chopin (Mazurkas!), Bartok, Dvorak, Gershwin... yet I don't know many recent composers whose music shows obvious pop influences.

Maybe if contemporary composers integrate more influences from popular music, their music may connect more meaningfully to the people and to our time?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

But this is a similar misunderstanding! Except for Gershwin, all such influences you name were real, traditional folk music, not music produced by a culture industry and mass media. It's an ambiguity of "popular". Like popular dialect comedy of Tyrol vs. popular Hollywood movies. 
Sure, there are some borderline cases because in the 19th century the developing popular music (like operetta or waltzes/other dances) was still close or overlapping with "serious"/classical music.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

chipia said:


> I think the OP has a point though. Many past composers drew on the popular / folk traditions of their time, e.g. Chopin (Mazurkas!), Bartok, Dvorak, Gershwin... yet I don't know many recent composers whose music shows obvious pop influences.
> 
> Maybe if contemporary composers integrate more influences from popular music, their music may connect more meaningfully to the people and to our time?


Many composers drank from folk/popular music, but most of the time the final product was fairly different... and it was mostly made to be consumed by their usual audience, the average classical listener of their time.

As for more organic blends of popular and classical (like prog rock), they exist but just aren't called classical, but rather a new breed of the respective popular genre (rock), which is usually the most dominant in the combination.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

But again, American popular music stems from the Africanization of folk and classical traditions - thinking that classical composers could easily switch gears and adopt this influence in phrasing and rhythm in a broad way was just not going to happen - the audience never would have accepted it for one - Jazz was dangerous, not something respectable people aspiring to emulate the European upper classes listened to. In a very confined way - like Dvorak’s 9th it could be acceptable.


Anyway we got all that compositional talent within the Jazz tradition to parse out popular music


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

chipia said:


> I think the OP has a point though. Many past composers drew on the popular / folk traditions of their time, e.g. Chopin (Mazurkas!), Bartok, Dvorak, Gershwin... yet I don't know many recent composers whose music shows obvious pop influences.
> 
> Maybe if contemporary composers integrate more influences from popular music, their music may connect more meaningfully to the people and to our time?


A lot of composers have demonstrated influence from _popular_ (rather than "Pop" music)- this has been going off-and-on since the early 20th century (Schnittke being an obvious recent example).

This comes up frequently but we need to differentiate between chart pop music (aka "top-40" music) and modern popular music, which is based on the tradition of recorded popular music starting in the late 19th century, which includes, among other things, basically every descendent of the blues, country music, tin-pan-alley popular tunes, et al, - (Jazz can arguably be considered "big" enough to be considered separately here).


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> But again, American popular music stems from the Africanization of folk and classical traditions - thinking that classical composers could easily switch gears and adopt this influence in phrasing and rhythm in a broad way was just not going to happen - the audience never would have accepted it for one


But if folk musicians were able to adopt african influence, why shouldn't classical composers be able?

Also, I don't see why you think that the audience wouldn't accept it. The vast majority of people nowadays listen to african-influenced music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

chipia said:


> But if folk musicians were able to adopt african influence, why shouldn't classical composers be able?
> 
> Also, I don't see why you think that the audience wouldn't accept it. The vast majority of people nowadays listen to african-influenced music.


Popular music as we know it largely descends _from_ a lot of forms of black music. Blues begetting virtually every descendent of rock-and-roll is the obvious one, though you also have modern electronic music having a mixture of European avant-garde-inspired music (e.g. "Krautrock"), minimalism, and black music which also spawned hip-hop.

Classical is based on an extremely long tradition of European art music. It's not as if it's like rock, where a new musical scene was formed from black music - attempting to merge disparate strands of music is a much different matter


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

@Kreisler Jr



> But this is a similar misunderstanding! Except for Gershwin, all such influences you name were real, traditional folk music, not music produced by a culture industry and mass media. It's an ambiguity of "popular". Like popular dialect comedy of Tyrol vs. popular Hollywood movies.
> Sure, there are some borderline cases because in the 19th century the developing popular music (like operetta or waltzes/other dances) was still close or overlapping with "serious"/classical music.


I think we need to accept that "real traditional folk music" of the 20th and 21st century is actually popular music with all its genres.

We are no longer a pre-industrial or feudal society, we are a capitalistic, consumerist society. And such society has its traditions, its culture, etc... and when it comes to music, it consists of popular music. Note that the world "popular" and "folk" point to the same thing... people. Music of the people.

The fact that the creators of today's popular music are bands, producers, and record labels, and not anonymous shepherds in the fields or pipe players, does not change the much about the fact that this is actually music of the people of our times.

And people are more likely to sing under the shower or whistle as they walk some hit of popular music, rather than some shepherd's tune from 1700s...

Why is this important?
Because just in the same way, as ignoring folk music traditions of the pre-industrial era was unwise for the composers composing in that era, in the same way, ignoring traditions of our time (i.e. popular music--- which in fact *is* real tradtitional folk music... *of our time*) is unwise for the composers composing in our time... because this would deprive them of two important things:

- almost endless source of inspiration and ideas
- a bridge to communicate with audiences, a common ground, way to approach them, to get closer to them


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Popular music as we know it largely descends _from_ a lot of forms of black music. Blues begetting virtually every descendent of rock-and-roll is the obvious one, though you also have modern electronic music having a mixture of European avant-garde-inspired music (e.g. "Krautrock") and black music which also spawned hip-hop.
> 
> Classical is based on a tradition of European art music. It's not as if it's like rock, where a new musical scene was formed from black music - attempting to merge disparate strands of music is a much different matter


But black music _was_ a merging of disparate music styles as well, i.e. of African and European folk traditions. 
Do you think that the triadic tonic-dominant progressions in blues were inherited from African music?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> There was no commercial "popular" music in the modern sense before the 19th century. There was folk music, there were excerpts/reductions of classical music, there were other kinds of functional music like dance music, church hymns etc. But there was not big business around this. Even the early popular music of the late 19th and early 20th century can hardly be compared in impact to what happened after mass media like records and radio. They obviously changed everything and any popular music of the last 80 years is dependent on these media and in turn shaped by them (the 3 min. playing time of early record sides and later vinyl singles etc.)
> This is a radical change compared to all eras before but almost nobody alive (unless they grew up in a third world country) can remember an earlier time. So it also shaped our conception of music and many people have a very distorted view of past classical music (e.g. Mozart being the "Mick Jagger of his age" or such nonsense). I'd say the idea entertained by the threadstarter that classical music in the stage of the early-mid 20th century should have developed into some fusion with rock is also influenced by a misconception of the history and tradition of pre-mass-media (classical) music.


yeah - I think a big turning point would have been the mid-1960s, which is when you start to get the first serious non-Jazz (Jazz had already been established as "serious" by then) popular music scholarship and publications. You sometimes hear snickering about kids learning about Michael Jackson et al in music schools - but the history of popular music scholarship is not exactly new!


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

I'm struggling to find the point of this conversation.

Are we discussing why classical music became obsolete? The answer has been hit on a couple of times already - it was aristocratic music designed for aristocratic people. Even during its heyday it wasn't "popular" in the sense that popular music today is popular now. Society changed and classical music became mostly irrelevant.

Asking whether classical music could have evolved to become more like popular music and therefore retain its popularity doesn't make any sense. The things that make it "classical" music are the same things that prevented it from doing that.

Or, from another perspective, you could say this is exactly what happened - all modern popular music is hugely influenced by classical harmony. Western music as a whole evolved from classical into popular music (though there were other non-classical and non-western influences) - those parts of classical music that remained compatible with our era are still here, no more and no less.

There really seems to be a weird obsession on this board with classical music's relevance or lack thereof and the reasons for it. What is the point? It's a settled question, I don't understand why so many here have such a chip on their shoulder about it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

chipia said:


> But black music _was_ a merging of disparate music styles as well, i.e. of African and European folk traditions.
> Do you think that the triadic tonic-dominant progressions in blues were inherited from African music?


This is possibly a stretch, but this has arguably already happened. Modern electronic music _is_ a combination of influences which includes post-war avant-garde European music (from the likes of popular music groups influenced by them, such as Can/Faust/Kraftwerk), Minimalist classical music, and various black music scenes (e.g Caribbean "dub" music, and the scenes it inspired in America).

Perhaps a better way to put it is that it isn't just a matter of shoving black influence in Classical - any actual merging of styles like this is probably going to result in something entirely different.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

mossyembankment said:


> I'm struggling to find the point of this conversation.
> 
> Are we discussing why classical music became obsolete? The answer has been hit on a couple of times already - it was aristocratic music designed for aristocratic people. Even during its heyday it wasn't "popular" in the sense that popular music today is popular now. Society changed and classical music became mostly irrelevant.


I would say it's not really irrelevant. A lot of people still listen to classical music, though people mostly listen to old classical music. I love rock'n'roll, but it still can't provide me the kind of satisfaction I get when listening to a Beethoven symphony. But the problem is claissical music greately reduced the amount of new works that can be both popular and artistically significant.
I am certain people would like more works like Shostakovich's symphonies.



mossyembankment said:


> Or, from another perspective, you could say this is exactly what happened - all modern popular music is hugely influenced by classical harmony. Western music as a whole evolved from classical into popular music (though there were other non-classical and non-western influences) - those parts of classical music that remained compatible with our era are still here, no more and no less.


Maybe indeed it happened in some way , but I think most of the modern popular music, moved too far away from classical music. I mean, modern man does not have _*that much *_ short attention span. The 3 minute standard for the length of the song has more to do with early recording technologies than with genuine preferences of the audiences for works that short. If people can sit through 3 hours movies, they would equally be able to sit through 1 hour symphony.

If only symphonies were cool, I'm certain some youths would even competitively listen to longer and more advanced ones to show they are true fans and not poseurs... similar to heavy metal subculture, which has an element of competition, where fans and groups alike compete against each other about who is more underground, whose music is more extreme, or more obscure, etc...


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

As a side note about attention spam, many millinials don't even go through the 3 minutes of a song they like... they skip to the next one after the first chorus, lol.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> As a side note about attention spam, many millinials don't even go through the 3 minutes of a song they like... they skip to the next one after the first chorus, lol.


but one of the most popular forms of entertainment are long-form podcasts (I'll leave things like video game streaming aside).

Any generation is not a homogenous group. There are young people who don't really care about serious music who listen to chart pop, there are art-school-minded kids who listen to barely-listenable noise records, and there are any number of different groups between these two extremes.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Anyway, I like that classical music tries to be different. It comes with the perception that there's already enough people doing popular music in many genres, and so classical composers (and other avant-garde musicians) try to fill a void that will find a niche audience.

The only thing I dislike about the contemporary environment of classical music is some conservative thinking and other random dogmas which hold it back -- although I believe that things are better in the 21st century than it was in the 20th century.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> As a side note about attention spam, many millinials don't even go through the 3 minutes of a song they like... they skip to the next one after the first chorus, lol.


I don't think this is about attention span. Most pop songs just repeat themselves after the chorus, so there is no point to listen further unless you want to hear the same thing again.

A symphony on the other hand doesn't repeat that much, you haven't heard all it has to offer after 2 Minutes because the movements are all different, and are themselves less repetitive than most pop songs.

This may be the reason why millennials can watch 2 hour movies but not finish 3 minute songs: Because movies are less repetitive and thus don't become boring so quickly.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

fbjim said:


> but one of the most popular forms of entertainment are long-form podcasts (I'll leave things like video game streaming aside).
> 
> Any generation is not a homogenous group. There are young people who don't really care about serious music who listen to chart pop, there are art-school-minded kids who listen to barely-listenable noise records, and there are any number of different groups between these two extremes.


Yes, I'm aware -- I'm a young person who lives with other young people. That said, it's worth mentioning that long-form types of media are consumed by many millenials while pausing it multiple times and watching it while checking their smartphones at the same time.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

chipia said:


> I don't think this is about attention span. Most pop songs just repeat themselves after the chorus, so there is no point to listen further unless you want to hear the same thing again.
> 
> A symphony on the other hand doesn't repeat that much, you haven't heard all it has to offer after 2 Minutes because the movements are all different, and are themselves less repetitive than most pop songs.


Well, that's not true -- most songs have at least one different section after the first chorus (like the middle 8, or a rap break or a beat drop) and composers/producers usually add more detail or different lyrics to the sections they're repeating to make them more exciting or nuanced. Also, there's a much better balance and sense of journey in the song when you hear it entirely even if it's repetitive.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> "Popular music" was never so massively popular like in the last 70 years -- and it was much more regional before instead of national or even global. Also, as far as I know, no popular artist became rich and powerful until rock and roll changed the game. So pop music became a completely different beast compared to folk music, and alongside all other social changes it led to a new paradigm.


It wasn't just rock though. It was pop culture in general, spread through mass media: everyone from Charlie Chaplin to Frank Sinatra to Al Jolson to Rudy Vallee.



> And let's not be naive thinking that things are changing now because it's still the same thing now that we're in the age of streaming -- popular is striving as always. There's no _Goldberg Variations_ threatening Olivia Rodrigo, and you're using the example of a well established work with a steady audience (instead of being a new work which needs to build its reputation), so _Goldberg_ is just a safe product for the classical market and nothing more. Besides, even though we may call it "popular", it's not breaking into the Billboard Top 200.


Oh yeah they're still going on the Elvis/Beatles/etc megastar pattern but I think the demographics just aren't there anymore. Nor is the music as fresh, exciting and cutting-edge as it was in the 50s and 60s on up until the grunge period (which was itself derivative in a lot of ways).

By the way, Olivia who? See, that's another thing. No, I'm not a kid anymore but I had never heard of this person. You'd have been hard pressed in the 60s and 70s to find very in the "western world" and maybe beyond who had never heard of Elvis and the Beatles. There's still a lot of money being made but it seems much more compartmentalized: too much of not very much, for lack of a better way of putting it.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

dissident said:


> Oh yeah they're still going on the Elvis/Beatles/etc megastar pattern but I think the demographics just aren't there anymore.
> 
> Olivia who?


Well, the question at the end answers why you think the demographics aren't there anymore -- if you're disconnected from mainstream media to the point of not knowing the name of the stars, of course you think pop music is not going strong.

Olivia is the most successful pop artist to come out this year. She's still young, so who knows if her popularity will endure, but she's already got three hits, two of them being Top 1 in the Billboard charts.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> Well, the question at the end answers why you think the demographics aren't there anymore -- if you're disconnected from mainstream media to the point of not knowing the name of the stars, of course you think pop music is not going strong.
> 
> Olivia is the most successful pop artist to come out this year. She's still young, so who knows if her popularity will endure, but she's already got three hits, two of them being Top 1 in the Billboard charts.


No but as I say above it didn't take much connection with mass media to know who Elvis and the Beatles were. I think the industry has been flogging a dead horse for about 2 decades now, creatively speaking. Yes the machine still takes in oodles of money, and the machine has to keep going (like Saturday Night Live) but the demographics and reach are just ... different.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> I don't think this is about attention span. Most pop songs just repeat themselves after the chorus, so there is no point to listen further unless you want to hear the same thing again.
> 
> A symphony on the other hand doesn't repeat that much, you haven't heard all it has to offer after 2 Minutes because the movements are all different, and are themselves less repetitive than most pop songs.
> 
> This may be the reason why millennials can watch 2 hour movies but not finish 3 minute songs: Because movies are less repetitive and thus don't become boring so quickly.


Once again, 'pop' is used to refer to only a subset of popular music: repetitive songs that only last 3 minutes. It's such a simple target, you wonder where the values is in bothering to compare the classical symphony with the typical songs in the Billboard Hot 100 (say, Olivia Rodrigo or The Kid Laroi)... but there's always someone around who wants to do it.

Why? This is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one: what point is there in making this comparison?


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

dissident said:


> No but as I say above it didn't take much connection with mass media to know who Elvis and the Beatles were. I think the industry has been flogging a dead horse for about 2 decades now.


That's not a symmetrical comparison since those acts had exposure in media for a long time, so you can't compare them with a newcomer. But I guess even you know of Beyonce or Rihanna or Taylor Swift despite no connection with mass media? That proves my point -- (but I'm not really comparing the artists and their relevancy).


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Forster said:


> Once again, 'pop' is used to refer to only a subset of popular music: repetitive songs that only last 3 minutes. It's such a simple target, you wonder where the values is in bothering to compare the classical symphony with the typical songs in the Billboard Hot 100... but there's always someone around who wants to do it.
> 
> Why? This is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one: what point is there in making this comparison?


I don't think there is a comparison, honestly. It's like trying to compare vaudeville with the Ballets Russes.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> I don't think there is a comparison, honestly. It's like trying to compare vaudeville with the Ballets Russes.


I don't think there is either, but some people keep making it here. chipia's not the first and they won't be the last.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> That's not a symmetrical comparison since those acts had exposure in media for a long time, so you can't compare them with a newcomer. But I guess even you know of Beyonce or Rihanna or Taylor Swift despite no connection with mass media? That proves my point -- (but I'm not really comparing the artists and their relevancy).


Yes I've heard of them, even like a few Rihanna songs from over a decade ago. But her presence on the scene is not all that great now from what I can tell. The reach and staying power don't really seem to be there anymore. Everything seems more disposable.

But I have to add also there are younger people I work with who really aren't all that aware of who/what Elvis and the Beatles and Motown were, any more than they're aware of Bach. The aforementioned Rudy Vallee was a huge star in his time. Who remembers him today?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

dissident said:


> I don't think there is a comparison, honestly. It's like trying to compare vaudeville with the Ballets Russes.


Maybe there's no comparison, but I'd love to see the combination.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> I would say it's not really irrelevant. A lot of people still listen to classical music, though people mostly listen to old classical music. I love rock'n'roll, but it still can't provide me the kind of satisfaction I get when listening to a Beethoven symphony. But the problem is claissical music greately reduced the amount of new works that can be both popular and artistically significant.
> I am certain people would like more works like Shostakovich's symphonies.


Who do you think would like more Shostakovich symphonies, other than the people who are already listening to Shostakovich symphonies? There is just no demand for this. If there was, we would be seeing it.



> Maybe indeed it happened in some way , but I think most of the modern popular music, moved too far away from classical music. I mean, modern man does not have _*that much *_ short attention span. The 3 minute standard for the length of the song has more to do with early recording technologies than with genuine preferences of the audiences for works that short. If people can sit through 3 hours movies, they would equally be able to sit through 1 hour symphony.
> 
> If only symphonies were cool, I'm certain some youths would even competitively listen to longer and more advanced ones to show they are true fans and not poseurs... similar to heavy metal subculture, which has an element of competition, where fans and groups alike compete against each other about who is more underground, whose music is more extreme, or more obscure, etc...


Saying modern music has moved "too much" away from classical music is your completely subjective opinion and, no offense, it isn't really meaningful outside of that. You wish popular music was closer to classical - okay. So?

Symphonies aren't "cool" for a reason, it isn't an accident. Comparing symphonies to movies also doesn't make any sense.

I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that I think this whole thread is based on some premises that really don't hold up. I just wish people who like classical music could be secure in the fact that they are enjoying it as a historical artifact - this shouldn't diminish its value.

But for those who feel alienated from pop culture, why not try to appreciate the value of the unfamiliar instead of giving it a passing or failing grade according to your own pre-existing values? Obviously you can do the latter if you find it rewarding, but it isn't going to accomplish anything.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

amfortas said:


> Maybe there's no comparison, but I'd love to see the combination.


Nijinsky doing the can-can? Or maybe Anna Pavlova would be more appropriate. :lol:


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

dissident said:


> Yes I've heard of them, even like a few Rihanna songs from over a decade ago. But her presence on the scene is not all that great now from what I can tell. The reach and staying power don't really seem to be there anymore. Everything seems more disposable.


Rihanna's stardom is still enormous with more than 45mi monthly listeners on Spotify. This system doesn't require its stars to be at the top of the charts/news every week of every year, since the industry doesn't work that way (there's a schedule and a necessary stream of new music all the time, while established artists release new works in cycles of 2/3 years). And, of course, heroes can also fall -- Elvis can tell you that.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> Rihanna's stardom is still enormous with more than 45mi monthly listeners on Spotify. This system doesn't require its stars to be at the top of the charts/news every week of every year, since the industry doesn't work that way (there's a schedule and a necessary stream of new music all the time, while established artists release new works in cycles of 2/3 years). And, of course, heroes can also fall -- Elvis can tell you that.


I still haven't heard any of her music in a long time. It's moved away from influence and presence to number of listeners on Spotify, and I don't think the two are exactly the same. I don't care about that.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

dissident said:


> I still haven't heard any of her music in a long time. It's moved away from influence and presence to number of listeners on Spotify, and I don't think the two are exactly the same. I don't care about that.


Honestly, I don't really care, so I won't keep this parallel discussion -- but my final say is that your personal experience doesn't account for how society consumes music and the fact that megastars are still an observable phenomenon.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> Honestly, I don't really care, so I won't keep this parallel discussion -- but my final say is that your personal experience doesn't account for how society consumes music and the fact that megastars are still an observable phenomenon.


Oh absolutely they are. It's an industry. "Megastars" have to be created regularly to keep the thing going.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> *One would be hard pressed to find much, if any, blues based influences in King Crimson*, Van Der Graaf Generator, or YES, etc, but it is pretty easy to find Western Classical references and influences.


Incorrect: Prozakc Blues, Potato Pie, Schizoid Man, Pictures of a City, Cat Food, Doctor Diamond, Ladies of the Road, Easy Money, Larks' Tongues in Aspic (all parts), Starless (whole central section) We'll Let You Know, Sailor's Tale, Radical Action, The Battle of Glass Tears, every improv from 1972 (). Also most of their whole tone music amounts to something like whole tone blues (the progressions use I bIV, and bV but the overall structures are adaptations of blues. There is blues, blues-rock influence all over Crimson's music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm all for shaking up boundaries, but that's more or less reality now than wishful thinking.

Ultimately, I don't even know if the boxes you put a piece in really matters now, apart from how music is marketed or labelled for purposes of downloading or streaming.

I was in the midst of covering a bit of the history of fusion but realised that its an unnecessary waste of words. All I need do is post a few clips of Astor Piazzolla. His fusion of tango with jazz, rock and classical provides one of the best examples of how boundaries had come down so much by the late 20th Century.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Sid James said:


> I'm all for shaking up boundaries, but that's more or less reality now than wishful thinking.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't even know if the boxes you put a piece in really matters now, apart from how music is marketed or labelled for purposes of downloading or streaming.
> 
> ...


I don't think the phenomenon is all that new though. The same sort of thing can be said about klezmer music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't know much about klezmer, but you're probably right. Gershwin is a bit like an earlier version of Piazzolla, and the clarinet solo opening _Rhapsody in Blue_ is straight out of klezmer. Gershwin blended together the sounds of New York - klezmer, jazz, classical. Gershwin's songs - later to be called jazz standards - where already popular culture, and despite protests by some purists, his concert hall music didn't take too long to become mainstream either. Gene Kelly's movie _American in Paris_ is a great example:






Incidentally, I should mention James Brown as being someone whose music made wide ranging impacts, not only on R&B, funk, jazz, rap, and popular music in general but also classical. Steve Reich, for example, has acknowledged his influence. Brown is credited with many things, but his rhythmic innovation called _the one_ lead to so many things in itself:






There's obvious influence of Brown in Michael Jackson's work, and also more recent musicians like Bruno Mars:


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> I don't think this is about attention span. Most pop songs just repeat themselves after the chorus, so there is no point to listen further unless you want to hear the same thing again.
> 
> A symphony on the other hand doesn't repeat that much, you haven't heard all it has to offer after 2 Minutes because the movements are all different, and are themselves less repetitive than most pop songs.
> 
> This may be the reason why millennials can watch 2 hour movies but not finish 3 minute songs: Because movies are less repetitive and thus don't become boring so quickly.


So, you were saying, chipia?...we're looking forward to your reasoning on why it's worth comparing 3 minute pop with a classical symphony.

While you're at it, you might also justify your criticism of a whole swathe of the population (millennials).


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Forster said:


> So, you were saying, chipia?...we're looking forward to your reasoning on why it's worth comparing 3 minute pop with a classical symphony.
> 
> While you're at it, you might also justify your criticism of a whole swathe of the population (millennials).


It wasn't me who was criticising millennials. Livly_Station claimed that millennials have short attention spans and evidenced this by the habit of skipping to the next song after the chorus. I tried to provide an explanation for this.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I seem to recall that I had read a few years ago about some research that songs now need to have very attractive first 10-15 secs because otherwise people skip to the next on their devices or streaming services. The 3 min. playing time of the 1950s-70s 7" single seems quite long compared with that...


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> It wasn't me who was criticising millennials. Livly_Station claimed that millennials have short attention spans and evidenced this by the habit of skipping to the next song after the chorus. I tried to provide an explanation for this.


Livly_Station may have started it. You seemed happy to continue it.

Anyway, on the more important point...pop v symphony...?


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Forster said:


> Livly_Station may have started it. You seemed happy to continue it.
> 
> Anyway, on the more important point...pop v symphony...?


I didn't "continue" it, but I tried to rebut the statement about short attention spans.

My comparison with symphonies was in reference to this post by ZJovicic:



> I mean, modern man does not have that much short attention span. The 3 minute standard for the length of the song has more to do with early recording technologies than with genuine preferences of the audiences for works that short. If people can sit through 3 hours movies, they would equally be able to sit through 1 hour symphony.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

mossyembankment said:


> the fact that prog rock never became widely popular shows why OP's hypothetical never came to pass.


Completely wrong. I can think of a long list of bands that played prog rock music who have sold tens of millions of records and performed in large arenas. And some are still doing it today including Dream Theater, and Devin Townsend. And of course there are many other fans who don't like it and didn't view it as an improvement. But as far as the OP's hypothetical question as to why weren't genres related to rock music created by the classical world in the 20th century? The classical folks are on the wrong continent and they're the wrong color so it's a ridiculous question. Just how would classical artists improve on black art forms including jazz, reggae, and R&B? Is the music of Stevie Wonder, Duke Ellington, or Charlie Parker not sophisticated enough? How would classical artists make it "way better"? Contemporary classical musicians and composers have enough of a challenge creating something new and compelling for listeners in their own genre after all that's been done over the past 120 years.

One musician who has made a huge contribution to the jazz world from a European perspective is ECM Records founder, Manfred Eicher. He doesn't create and perform the music himself but as a hands on record producer he's had a huge impact in shaping the contemporary jazz music released on his label.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Long after having had a professional career in music I went back to school and got a masters in information and library studies, so classification is important to me. I like to have music categorized into genres, it makes a large collection easier to organize and accessible. So, I prefer keeping genres separated by clearly delineated lines.

However, this is no way creates a hierarchy based on "quality". I believe 100% that there is Rock, Jazz, Blues, Country, etc., and Classical, of equally high artistic standards - each according to the discipline of their own stylistic attributes.

But I want them grouped into their respective buckets.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Long after having had a professional career in music I went back to school and got a masters in information and library studies, so classification is important to me. I like to have music categorized into genres, it makes a large collection easier to organize and accessible. So, I prefer keeping genres separated by clearly delineated lines.
> 
> However, this is no way creates a hierarchy based on "quality". I believe 100% that there is Rock, Jazz, Blues, Country, etc., and Classical, of equally high artistic standards - each according to the discipline of their own stylistic attributes.
> 
> But I want them grouped into their respective buckets.


Though I think it's wrong to say that classical music is a genre. Because baroque music, romanticism, classical period, serial music and minimalism, have just as little in common as jazz, reggae, soul, metal, country and EDM.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Completely wrong. I can think of a long list of bands that played prog rock music who have sold tens of millions of records and performed in large arenas. And some are still doing it today including Dream Theater, and Devin Townsend. And of course there are many other fans who don't like it and didn't view it as an improvement.


I'm sorry to offend anyone, but prog rock, while it surely has its fans, was not an important indicator of the direction that popular music would take. It's a niche offshoot. I'm not saying it's had no influence at all, but it's not significant on the scale of OP's question.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I'll turn the tables on you and ask: why don't you spend more time _listening_ than worrying about hypotheticals?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> Though I think it's wrong to say that classical music is a genre. Because baroque music, romanticism, classical period, serial music and minimalism, have just as little in common as jazz, reggae, soul, metal, country and EDM.


Except I think you'll find Classical listeners will include several if not all of those styles and periods in their overall Classical listening - and consider the others you listed as non-Classical music.

Which, btw, is exactly how this forum is organized. And as we have seen, Classical listeners are very adamant about not mixing the two genres.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

mossyembankment said:


> I'm sorry to offend anyone, but prog rock, while it surely has its fans, was not an important indicator of the direction that popular music would take. It's a niche offshoot. I'm not saying it's had no influence at all, but it's not significant on the scale of OP's question.


Actually, it is because it raised the level of musicianship and sophistication in the world of rock music.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

This thread already deserves "legendary" status. :tiphat:


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

mossyembankment said:


> I'm struggling to find the point of this conversation.
> 
> Are we discussing why classical music became obsolete? The answer has been hit on a couple of times already - it was aristocratic music designed for aristocratic people. Even during its heyday it wasn't "popular" in the sense that popular music today is popular now. Society changed and classical music became mostly irrelevant.
> 
> ...


Statement in black: wrong.

In Western music there was no evolution from classical to popular. Starting with the beginning of Western art music (plainchant of the early Christian churches) there has always been some sort of popular, i.e., folk music (music existing outside the sphere of art music, sung and performed by the majority of people on the planet, in whatever form) existing and practiced concurrently...two traditions or streams, if you will, running side by for centuries with occasional insignificant interminglings. Heck, numerous folk musics existed long before Western art music.

The statement in red I agree with completely...it is spot on.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Actually, it is because it raised the level of musicianship and sophistication in the world of rock music.


Quite, and it undoubtedly affected the direction pop music took. As usual, however, it's not clear what we are talking about when we refer to pop and popular.

Artists such as Bowie, Queen and Genesis wrote and performed music that embraced compositions that sold well enough to give them both single and album chart success. Whilst King Crimson and Gentle Giant, ELP and Pinl Floyd were less chart oriented, the cumulative impact of the whole spectrum of artists one might label as art rock and prog rock on pop was clear. Of course, they fell out of fashion once punk appeared, but a number of subsequent artists (eg Radiohead, Muse) picked up where prog left off.

That all sounds rather crude and simplistic: the evolution of pop and rock is subtle, shifting, nuanced - even if the content of the music itself sometimes wasn't!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The OP confuses me a little bit, but it looks to me that part of the confusion is treating musical genres as if they were descriptions of the music rather than descriptions of the communities that made and enjoyed the music.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

classical music (European, Chinese, Indian, Javanese, whatever) historically can be defined as court music for the elites, which is why in the modern world it has somewhat of an identity crisis


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

science said:


> The OP confuses me a little bit, but it looks to me that part of the confusion is treating musical genres as if they were descriptions of the music rather than descriptions of the communities that made and enjoyed the music.


Exactly! The classical world is never going to produce a better version of Louis Armstrong or Nina Simone so the whole idea is silly.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> Asking whether classical music could have evolved to become more like popular music and therefore retain its popularity doesn't make any sense. The things that make it "classical" music are the same things that prevented it from doing that.


Again I'll need to give some clarification.

My vision of the natural path for the classical music in 20th century would not necessarily mean that it needs to go exactly the same route as pop and rock... which would indeed alienate it from its classical roots.

But my vision does include 2 important ideas:

1) classical music producing new ideas, having new developments, innovation, sounding modern, sounding fresh, but not innovation a la Schoenberg, but creating innovative ideas similar to those that occurred in popular music...
(to get the idea you can list all kinds of musical innovations that occurred in jazz, rock, metal, disco, funk, even hip hop and EDM)
AND then instead of just using them to create short songs (which is the case in popular genres themselves) - using them to create large, meaningful musical works, musical masterpieces, that would have the same artistic importance as the best works of common practice period, and keep all of their popularity and mass appeal. Which brings us to point 2:

2) classical music would have the same fate as movies and literature. It would have mass appeal, but it would at the same time require some kind of sophistication from the listener. But it would be popular, and an educated member of society would need to be familiar with it, as a part of their general culture, education.

My vision is that contemporary classical masterpieces would have exactly the same fate, and dwell in exactly the same cultural niche, as cinematic masterpieces... So they would stand side by side with Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind, etc...

which means they would still be advanced, they wouldn't be trivial, they would be artistically significant, they wouldn't be just entertainment, they would require some smarts, some effort and sophistication from the listener, but they would be mainstream, and they would be socially relevant, they would matter, they would be well known by masses...

Or, at least, they would stand next to great novels of the 20th century, which are perhaps a bit less popular than the movies, but are still quite popular, well known, and significant, and a part of public discourse...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Haydn70 said:


> Statement in black: wrong.
> 
> In Western music there was no evolution from classical to popular. Starting with the beginning of Western art music (plainchant of the early Christian churches) there has always been some sort of popular, i.e., folk music (music existing outside the sphere of art music, sung and performed by the majority of people on the planet, in whatever form) existing and practiced concurrently...two traditions or streams, if you will, running side by for centuries with occasional insignificant interminglings. Heck, numerous folk musics existed long before Western art music.
> 
> The statement in red I agree with completely...it is spot on.


This is exactly right.

Folk or vernacular music has been a part of all human societies, and I agree it predated the development of Classical music, which was an outgrowth of liturgical music. The music of troubadours was not folk music, and the troubadours themselves were members of the elite class. Their songs evolved into art songs, not popular music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> Again I'll need to give some clarification.
> 
> My vision of the natural path for the classical music in 20th century would not necessarily mean that it needs to go exactly the same route as pop and rock... which would indeed alienate it from its classical roots.
> 
> ...


You have a fantasy novel in the works.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> I'm sorry to offend anyone, but prog rock, while it surely has its fans, was not an important indicator of the direction that popular music would take. It's a niche offshoot. I'm not saying it's had no influence at all, but it's not significant on the scale of OP's question.


(unless it was German, in which case it had extraordinary indications on the directions popular music would take)


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Actually, it is because it raised the level of musicianship and sophistication in the world of rock music.


Disagree with this, but respectfully.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

fbjim said:


> (unless it was German, in which case it had extraordinary indications on the directions popular music would take)


Care to expand on this?


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Haydn70 said:


> Statement in black: wrong.
> 
> In Western music there was no evolution from classical to popular. Starting with the beginning of Western art music (plainchant of the early Christian churches) there has always been some sort of popular, i.e., folk music (music existing outside the sphere of art music, sung and performed by the majority of people on the planet, in whatever form) existing and practiced concurrently...two traditions or streams, if you will, running side by for centuries with occasional insignificant interminglings. Heck, numerous folk musics existed long before Western art music.
> 
> The statement in red I agree with completely...it is spot on.


OK - thanks for the correction, I take your point.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> You have a fantasy novel in the works.


Yeah, I know it's not realistic given actual state of affairs...

but I think it's a legitimate question to ask why don't we have classical music equivalents of Citizen Kane or Godfather in the 20th century?

The only work of similar impact I can think of (in 20th century) is perhaps Carmina Burana or some Russian symphonies. But it's still not really close.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> Yeah, I know it's not realistic given actual state of affairs...
> 
> but I think it's a legitimate question to ask why don't we have classical music equivalents of Citizen Kane or Godfather in the 20th century?
> 
> The only work of similar impact I can think of (in 20th century) is perhaps Carmina Burana or some Russian symphonies. But it's still not really close.


Maybe film scores?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mossyembankment said:


> Disagree with this, but respectfully.


I do too. For me the more "sophisticated" Rock becomes the less it is Rock. I prefer three-chord, and loud, Rock.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Maybe film scores?


Yeah film scores are really close to that but they come with 2 problems:

- usually disregarded by classical community, critics, etc...
- even by public they are rarely considered on their own, independently from the movie (which is perfectly fair, because they weren't supposed in the first place to stand on their own)

But then, it begs question:

Why don't we have standalone classical compositions similar to the movie scores? Perhaps a bit more refined, more polished, so that they can be a world of their own... but otherwise similar to movie scores... (mainly in sense of impact on listeners, innovation, etc... for example most movie scores are tonal, but they are still quite fresh and innovative and they aren't just derivative of the old classical music... many famous film composers have a voice of their own, style of their own... and classical critics can only hate them.... but I think such hate is completely undeserved and could in fact stem from the inability of the classical community itself to produce the works of same impact.

I actually think film composers are in fact true rebels, from the classical perspective. Because it's easy to write serial works when everyone is doing it... it's the path of least resistance. But making original innovations on the terrain that is derided and disregarded by critics, this is actual rebellion.

I just think it's pity that movie composers mainly stuck just to movies. They should have written some standalone works as well.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> I just think it's pity that movie composers mainly stuck just to movies. They should have written some standalone works as well.


But some haven't. *John Williams* has created at least two dozen concert works, mostly based on his film scores, but re-written. I am sure there are others but someone more informed could say more about them.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> Yeah, I know it's not realistic given actual state of affairs...
> 
> but I think it's a legitimate question to ask why don't we have classical music equivalents of Citizen Kane or Godfather in the 20th century?
> 
> The only work of similar impact I can think of (in 20th century) is perhaps Carmina Burana or some Russian symphonies. But it's still not really close.


I think classical music is more analogous to romantic poetry, 19th-century literature, etc. It has a lot of conventions that are now dated. The Godfather is sophisticated but is a product of its time.

In other words I don't think it's the sophistication of classical music that keeps it from being a more relevant art form now - it's the spartan, structural limitations of the form that make it fall short of what modern audiences expect from an engaging work of art.

I love classical music in many ways because of its austerity, and that's probably also why I prefer solo piano music, but I also like it for its historical value. I think that for most people today, that is a bridge too far. Just like a lot of great classical art, it's not that people deny its value, but it can't easily be adapted to modern sensibilities and expectations of the way art speaks to them.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I've just found that Ennio Morricone also wrote some standalone works, not movie related.

For example this:






(haven't listened to it before... pressed play now... sounds interesting)

IMO this would be a better direction for classical music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> Care to expand on this?


Oh yeah, just German experimental rock of the 70s being one of the several musical scenes (along with things like disco, dub and even minimalism) which eventually begat modern electronic music.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Got it, point well-taken


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Haydn70 said:


> Statement in black: wrong.
> 
> In Western music there was no evolution from classical to popular. Starting with the beginning of Western art music (plainchant of the early Christian churches) there has always been some sort of popular, i.e., folk music (music existing outside the sphere of art music, sung and performed by the majority of people on the planet, in whatever form) existing and practiced concurrently...two traditions or streams, if you will, running side by for centuries with occasional insignificant interminglings. Heck, numerous folk musics existed long before Western art music.
> 
> The statement in red I agree with completely...it is spot on.


Yeah - it's obviously reductive to say it started there, but I tend to consider the record to be the start of what we consider popular music now. If classical music is based on a tradition of western art music descending from liturgical music, then popular music descends from the history of recorded music which began with the record player itself (it of course is based on traditions which preceded this, but the record was such a fundamental change that I consider it to be the start of an entirely "new" musical practice)


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

fbjim said:


> Yeah - it's obviously reductive to say it started there, but I tend to consider the record to be the start of what we consider popular music now. If classical music is based on a tradition of western art music descending from liturgical music, then popular music descends from the history of recorded music which began with the record player itself (it of course is based on traditions which preceded this, but the record was such a fundamental change that I consider it to be the start of an entirely "new" musical practice)


Fair enough - I guess I only meant that a lot of the core elements (emotional, harmonic, narrative) of popular music today can trace their origins to classical music, in addition to folk traditions, etc. It's hard to imagine that popular music today would be anything like it is in the absence of classical music. But yes, it may not be right to say it "evolved" from classical music.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> In other words I don't think it's the sophistication of classical music that keeps it from being a more relevant art form now - it's the spartan, structural limitations of the form that make it fall short of what modern audiences expect from an engaging work of art.


What 'limitations' does classical music have, that make it so unappealing, in particular compared to pop?


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Haydn70 said:


> Statement in black: wrong.
> 
> In Western music there was no evolution from classical to popular. Starting with the beginning of Western art music (plainchant of the early Christian churches) there has always been some sort of popular, i.e., folk music (music existing outside the sphere of art music, sung and performed by the majority of people on the planet, in whatever form) existing and practiced concurrently...two traditions or streams, if you will, running side by for centuries with occasional insignificant interminglings. Heck, numerous folk musics existed long before Western art music.
> 
> The statement in red I agree with completely...it is spot on.


I actually don't think your argument refutes that point of view -- which was an interesting angle, even if imperfect.

We know that folk music has always been a thing in the West, but I don't really think that popular music of the last 70 years follows that same traditions and genres of old folk music. Of course, it may have inhiritted one thing or another, but that's it. Modern popular music is just a new species completely -- and it is the product of the crossbreeding of classical, folk and african music. So, in a way, one can argue that all these genres have evolved, together, into popular music (including classical).


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

ZJovicic said:


> Yeah, I know it's not realistic given actual state of affairs...
> 
> but I think it's a legitimate question to ask why don't we have classical music equivalents of Citizen Kane or Godfather in the 20th century?
> 
> The only work of similar impact I can think of (in 20th century) is perhaps Carmina Burana or some Russian symphonies. But it's still not really close.


Film is a popular medium - of course, art film exists (and it's not as if the popular/"serious" distinction maps cleanly onto the musical one) but I don't imagine you'd be asking what like, the Stan Brakhage of classical music of the 20th century is (because it's probably like, Morton Feldman or something).

I think there's a legitimate question to be asked whether classical music was pushed out, or deliberately ceded the ground to artistic popular music when it came to the sort of artistic populist art you're talking about re: The Godfather- but I think you're also underestimating the amount of accessible classical music which was written in the 20th century apart from the avant garde spaces which suck up so much of the discourse.

Have you heard Samuel Barber?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

fbjim said:


> Film is a popular medium - of course, art film exists (and it's not as if the popular/"serious" distinction maps cleanly onto the musical one) but I don't imagine you'd be asking what like, the Stan Brakhage of classical music of the 20th century is (because it's probably like, Morton Feldman or something).
> 
> I think there's a legitimate question to be asked whether classical music was pushed out, or deliberately ceded the ground to artistic popular music when it came to the sort of artistic populist art you're talking about re: The Godfather- but I think you're also underestimating the amount of accessible classical music which was written in the 20th century apart from the avant garde spaces which suck up so much of the discourse.
> 
> Have you heard Samuel Barber?


I'm not familiar with his music, but I like what you shared.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

chipia said:


> What 'limitations' does classical music have, that make it so unappealing, in particular compared to pop?


This would take a treatise that I probably don't have the time or the expertise to write, but I think it's fair to say that the popular art forms that have arisen in the time since classical music's heyday (including pop music) have evolved in their form (and in other ways) to speak to modern sensibilities in ways that classical music (especially pre-20th century) just cannot easily do.

One of them is the degree of social commentary, which I think is much more difficult (though not impossible) to express through classical music than through other forms. But that's certainly not the only one.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> ...
> In other words I don't think it's the sophistication of classical music that keeps it from being a more relevant art form now - it's the spartan, structural limitations of the form that make it fall short of what modern audiences expect from an engaging work of art. ...


Eh? A fugue or movement in sonata form are far less "spartan" or "structurally limited" than AABA song form. They also take a little more effort to understand.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> One of them is the degree of social commentary, which I think is much more difficult (though not impossible) to express through classical music than through other forms. But that's certainly not the only one.


I don't see why contemporary classical vocal music shouldn't provide the same social commentary as pop.

If you mean instrumental music, I'm still not sure if it's such a big problem. Plenty of instrumental film music is very popular, along with things like Ludovico Einaudi.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

chipia said:


> Plenty of instrumental film music is very popular, along with things like Ludovico Einaudi.


Depends on how you define "very popular."

"Contemporary classical vocal music" - to the extent that anyone today outside of that narrow world even knows what this refers to, there is just no way that this can speak to people today on the same level as pop music, and that includes in terms of social commentary. This to me is such common sense that I'm kind of at a loss to explain it, but basically social commentary is a lot more effective and meaningful to people when it is in a vernacular and form that is comprehensible/relatable to them. That's really the whole point of pop music.

EDIT: Show tunes/Broadway musicals are maybe what you get when you try to take more elements of classical forms and put them into an accessible modern vernacular, but I suspect most people here would not consider these to be "classical" in any meaningful way.

FURTHER EDIT: I think it's important to make clear that the difference in vernacular and form between pop music and classical music is NOT the same thing as saying they differ in "sophistication" or "complexity." I think a lot of people in the classical world tend to reduce it to that, but I think doing so misses the point and simplifies what pop music is all about.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> ...
> FURTHER EDIT: I think it's important to make clear that the difference in vernacular and form between pop music and classical music is NOT the same thing as saying they differ in "sophistication" or "complexity." I think a lot of people in the classical world tend to reduce it to that, but I think doing so misses the point and simplifies what pop music is all about.


They're different, but not in the classical="spartan" vs popular="luxuriant" sense. Only if you choose to redefine words completely is a three-chord rock song as "sophisticated" as a Mahler symphony. Which isn't to say the rock song is "bad". Far from it. I think part of the problem is thinking that pointing out differences like that is implying that pop is "bad", therefore we have to stipulate at the outset (as a sort of confession of faith) that pop is "just as ______ as" classical/art/serious/whatever music.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

dissident said:


> They're different, but not in the classical="spartan" vs popular="luxuriant" sense. Only if you choose to redefine words completely is a three-chord rock song as "sophisticated" as a Mahler symphony.


Yes, well you evidently fall within the category of people I'm talking about.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> Yes, well you evidently fall within the category of people I'm talking about.


What people are those? Gamelan music is also more sophisticated. Agree? That "category of people" don't really seem to be the ones worried about equality of "value" between classical and popular. They're too different to compare in that sense.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

dissident said:


> What people are those? Gamelan music is also more sophisticated. Agree? That "category of people" don't really seem to be the ones worried about equality of "value" between classical and popular. They're too different to compare in that sense.


People who reduce the differences between classical and pop music to be mainly between "sophisticated" and "unsophisticated." I don't know much about gamelan music. I will say that I think pop music is sophisticated in ways that may harder to appreciate if you're using classical/romantic symphonic music as your gold standard for "sophistication." But I don't particularly expect to convince you of that.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> People who reduce the differences between classical and pop music to be mainly between "sophisticated" and "unsophisticated." I don't know much about gamelan music. I will say that I think pop music is sophisticated in ways that may harder to appreciate if you're using classical/romantic symphonic music as your gold standard for "sophistication." But I don't particularly expect to convince you of that.


Classical is sophisticated in ways that may be harder to appreciate if you're using popular as your gold standard, too. I don't know where the idea comes from that a classical devotee is necessarily ignorant of popular music to the point of blocking it from their consciousness. Yeah, I know a lot of pop. Tastes aren't necessarily either/or all the time.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Well, I think both are capable of, and often full of, sophistication.

And I don't assume that of classical devotees as a whole, just the ones who make a habit of talking about how popular music is inherently less sophisticated. I'm getting tired of typing that word.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> Well, I think both are capable of, and often full of, sophistication.
> 
> And I don't assume that of classical devotees as a whole, just the ones who make a habit of talking about how popular music is inherently less sophisticated. I'm getting tired of typing that word.


The ones beating that dead horse aren't the "classical devotees". At least not exclusively. Anyway the "classical is no better/more sophisticated/more beautiful/ more artistic than ______" harangues are getting tiresome too, especially considering this is a classical music forum. And I don't mean you specifically.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

dissident said:


> The ones beating that dead horse aren't the "classical devotees".


I understood the whole idea of this thread (which I don't really think makes sense) to be basically premised on that view, but regardless...


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> I understood the whole idea of this thread (which I don't really think makes sense) to be basically premised on that view, but regardless...


Yeah, in fairness you didn't start the thread. The title itself seems loopy.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

dissident said:


> The ones beating that dead horse aren't the "classical devotees". At least not exclusively. Anyway the "classical is no better/more sophisticated/more beautiful/ more artistic than ______" harangues are getting tiresome too, *especially considering this is a classical music forum*. And I don't mean you specifically.


I don't understand this argument. Music genres aren't sports teams; the point of participating in a classical music forum isn't to "root" for classical music over other genres.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> I'm sorry to offend anyone, but *prog rock*, while it surely has its fans, *was not an important indicator of the direction that popular music would take*.


Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand.



fbjim said:


> (unless it was German, in which case it had extraordinary indications on the directions popular music would take)


It's like falling dominoes. The first to tip over doesn't touch the last, but the one has an impact on the other nevertheless.



ZJovicic said:


> but I think it's a legitimate question to ask why don't we have classical music equivalents of Citizen Kane or Godfather in the 20th century?


Assuming this is a legitimate analogy, who says we don't? You?



SanAntone said:


> I do too. For me the more "sophisticated" Rock becomes the less it is Rock. I prefer three-chord, and loud, Rock.


A perfect exemplification of the problem we have here, where discussions about "pop" and "rock" reveal that what you mean by it, and what I mean by it, together with what we get out of it, are not sufficiently close to make for a meaningful dialogue about comparison with "classical".


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> The ones beating that dead horse aren't the "classical devotees". At least not exclusively. Anyway the "classical is no better/more sophisticated/more beautiful/ more artistic than ______" harangues are getting tiresome too, especially considering this is a classical music forum. And I don't mean you specifically.


As you so often point out, this is a forum for lovers of classical music. So, everyone here is on the same side (at least to start with...Beethoven v Mozart is still a dead horse that regularly gets beaten).

No lover of both musics is going to start a thread about how much they prefer pop over classical, or how it's equally sophisticated. But apparently, the reverse happens often enough to rile the lovers of both that they feel they should respond.

Unfortunately, as enough people have said already, comparing popular music with classical is pointless, but saying so is also beating a dead horse.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Forster said:


> Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand.


It's pretty convoluted by this point, but:

- OP asked why there isn't a kind of "sophisticated" rock, informed by classical or at least that would appeal to classical fans, but that had the same cultural importance/stature of rock/pop today
- Someone said that prog rock does many of those things
- I argued that it's the very ways in which rock/pop is different from classical that have brought it to the cultural position it now holds, and said that the fact that prog rock never became very important in the grand scheme of popular music for many of the same reasons
- Someone disputed my statement that prog rock was unimportant
- I replied with the post that you quoted


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> It's pretty convoluted by this point, but:
> 
> - OP asked why there isn't a kind of "sophisticated" rock, informed by classical or at least that would appeal to classical fans, but that had the same cultural importance/stature of rock/pop today
> - Someone said that prog rock does many of those things
> ...


Thanks - but that argument sequence I got. What I was specifically asking about was your idea that prog "was not an important indicator of the direction that popular music would take". I mean, what direction did it take?...at what point in time along the development of pop did it take this turn?...if prog wasn't an "indicator", what was? etc etc.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

I just mean that to the extent prog rock incorporated elements of classical music (something I can't say is true or untrue), it's an outlier and not really relevant to my point. My point, that is, that pop music was about moving away from those elements, and that basically the elements of classical music that OP is speaking about are basically not compatible with, maybe even are antithetical to, popular music. Probably could've expressed it more clearly, but that's what I was going for.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> I just mean that to the extent prog rock incorporated elements of classical music (something I can't say is true or untrue), it's an outlier and not really relevant to my point. My point, that is, that pop music was about moving away from those elements, and that basically the elements of classical music that OP is speaking about are basically not compatible with, maybe even are antithetical to, popular music. Probably could've expressed it more clearly, but that's what I was going for.


If classical were a single, readily identifiable thing and rock (even prog rock) were a single thing, you might be able to argue that what distinguishes them also separates them to the extent that they are not compatible.

As you've probably noticed, "What is classical?" is an enduring unanswered question. Prog rock may be a narrower field, but even this term is vague (denied by some it is applied to) and as I indicated in my earlier post, some bands to whom the term might be applied straddled pop, rock and prog.

It _might _be worth pursuing the question, "What is it that separates rock from classical?"...but in this thread, perhaps not: the OP is confusing enough as it is.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Portamento said:


> I don't understand this argument. Music genres aren't sports teams; the point of participating in a classical music forum isn't to "root" for classical music over other genres.


Who said discussing classical music is rooting for it? But if there's a motorcycle forum I don't see a point in always trying to veer the discussion toward bicycles.


Forster said:


> Unfortunately, as enough people have said already, comparing popular music with classical is pointless, but saying so is also beating a dead horse.


And pointing out that my pointing it out is beating a dead horse and so on as infinitum. And I'm the one who's argumentative? You couldn't have just ignored my comment? It wasn't addressed to you anyway.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think the movie comparison does not support the idea that classical music should have become some kind of artsy rock.

Film is a very different medium, especially compared to classical music because there are not different performances, there is only movie. It is also fairly new, stems from the time when popular and classical music had parted ways already in the late 19th century. And after 130 years of movies or about 90 of "talkies" we see similar divisions to music or other art forms.

There can be periods when critically acclaimed "high culture" overlaps strongly with popular culture. Shakespeare is the great example for this and both the rich bourgeois ladies and their chambermaids played or sang the bridesmaids' chorus from Freischütz everywhere, much to Heinrich Heines chagrin.

So we have some classic movies that are like _Much Ado about nothing_ or _Freischütz_, maybe _Modern Times_ or _Citizen Kane_ or even _Matrix_. But we have also plenty of extremely popular movies, say Titanic or Star Wars that are not simultaneously high culture.

And it's the same for pop/rock. There was a brief period in the 1970s and 80s with some "artsy" groups being also hugely popular, other were never very popular. And the development of "art/prog rock" has been more towards niche in the last 40 years with punk, grunge, rap, whatever being rather more popular.

It's the same for Jazz as well. Some styles of Jazz were popular music in the first half of the 20th century but it has become ever more niche since then, maybe from internal development, maybe being displaced by pop/rock.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Forster said:


> Thanks - but that argument sequence I got. What I was specifically asking about was your idea that prog "was not an important indicator of the direction that popular music would take". I mean, what direction did it take?...at what point in time along the development of pop did it take this turn?...if prog wasn't an "indicator", what was? etc etc.


I think prog was indicative of a desire for rock to take on the aesthetic elements of sophistication that classical music had, but this had a few problems, in that a lot of it sounded goofy, and a lot of it strayed too far from the rock idiom and caused an aesthetic backlash (this wasn't prog's "fault" - rock had started to become somewhat stale in the *mid* 70s and the likes of James Taylor were just as despised by the punkies as ELP).

As it turns out, formal complexity a la classical music wasn't the direction pop music would take - it'd be rhythm.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> A perfect exemplification of the problem we have here, where discussions about "pop" and "rock" reveal that what you mean by it, and what I mean by it, together with what we get out of it, are not sufficiently close to make for a meaningful dialogue about comparison with "classical".


I don't want to compare Rock with Classical, looking for similarities. They are two distinct kinds of music, each offering very different listening experiences. And I much prefer keeping them that way.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I don't want to compare Rock with Classical, looking for similarities. They are two distinct kinds of music, each offering very different listening experiences. And I much prefer keeping them that way.


Yes. Rock, like blues, jazz, gospel, soul, and hip hop, has significant non-Western, specifically, west African, influences. You don't begin to see significant non-Western influences in European classical music until near the end of the 19th century. So there is a fundamentally different cultural frame of reference. This is Music History 101. Why do people ignore it?

I love the late Tom Petty's comment about Rock: "It isn't supposed to be that good." Similarly, Chuck Berry appeared on Johnny Carson and played truncated versions of several of his biggest hits, each to a standing ovation. Then he shrugged and said, "They're all pretty much the same." But then you have people like Duane Allman, Frank Zappa, David Byrne and Thom Yorke, who saw things differently.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Yes. Rock, like blues, jazz, gospel, soul, and hip hop, has significant non-Western, specifically, west African, influences. You don't begin to see significant non-Western influences in European classical music until near the end of the 19th century. So there is a fundamentally different cultural frame of reference. This is Music History 101. Why do people ignore it?
> 
> I love the late Tom Petty's comment about Rock: "It isn't supposed to be that good." Similarly, Chuck Berry appeared on Johnny Carson and played truncated versions of several of his biggest hits, each to a standing ovation. Then he shrugged and said, "They're all pretty much the same." But then you have people like Duane Allman, Frank Zappa, David Byrne and Thom Yorke, who saw things differently.


All genres allow for a wide variety of individual expression within the basic style, but if the individual goes too far, he will enter a different genre.

However, from your list I would strike Duane Allman's name since he exhibited a strong connection to Blues roots throughout his brief career. Blues, Country, and Jump Blues, were the building blocks of early Rock 'n' Roll, which eventually became simply Rock, which is now called Classic Rock.

The rest of the names on your list became less like Rock and became more like a different genre:

Zappa -Fusion Jazz
Byrne - Arthouse Pop
Yorke - Arthouse Pop/Singer-Songwriter


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

One of the points a lot of people miss is that complexity (nor duration) is not the same thing as quality. There are many works that are short (or simple), and yet at the same time exceptionally good... just like there are long and complicated works that are bad.

For the prog rock I think too much effort was put into trying to make the music as complex as possible.

I think it's a wrong approach. Adding elements that serve no purpose is wrong IMO (we can sort of apply Occam's razor to music as well). There's no point in complexity for its own sake. If you can achieve the same result in a simpler way, better to do it like this, than to add meaningless complexity.

So I think, when we try to compare merits of classical vs popular music, there's no need to focus just on prog rock.

For example I think there could be made a perfectly legitimate comparison between certain traditional pop standards (a la Frank Sinatra) and art songs (a la Schubert). And I see no reason to think that the former are in any way inferior. (Completely legitimate to compare an album like "In The Wee Small Hours" with a song cycle like "Winterreise")

Also in last 2 decades there has been a lot of creativity in indie music community.
A lot of conceptual albums, or very original songs, that not necessarily aim for complexity for its own sake.

For example an album "Let England Shake" by PJ Harvey...

Because of all this I am a bit frustrated with sort of autistic and ignorant attitude that classical music community has towards popular music, which consists mostly of following:

- not following closely developments in the popular music, as if they are not important. In fact this can't be further from truth. I think classical community can learn a lot from the likes of Frank Sinatra, PJ Harvey, Pink Floyd, The Beach Boys, etc...
- keeping strong the separation between 2 realms. I think it's bad for both classical and popular music. For classical it's bad because it prevents it for engaging with wider music scene, and it keeps it from learning from it, and it keeps it from engaging in free competition with all the other genres. It's also bad for popular music, because no matter how exceptionally good it gets it can't be included in the canon of high culture. Which means it doesn't get enough attention from Universities, conservatories, academies, it doesn't get included in the music education in schools, kids don't learn about it in school... Even though in real life it is *the mainstream*, academia treats it as some sort of fringe. On the other hand classical music is fringe in real life, and still it gets treated as the only important type of music by academia. So academia gives some sort of privileged monopolistic position to classical music which can only be detrimental both to classical music itself (because without competition everything rots), and to all other music which gets neglected. I could even say, it's fundamentally undemocratic.

Old classical music is not fringe though, but contemporary is...

If contemporary classical music wants to regain its relevance I think it needs to enter free and fair competition with all other types of music, trying to learn from them as well. (Just like popular genres can learn from classical music, the same can go in the opposite direction)


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I don't _want_ to compare Rock and Classical either. But since some people insist on doing it, I wish they'd do it properly


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

dissident said:


> Who said discussing classical music is rooting for it? But if there's a motorcycle forum I don't see a point in always trying to veer the discussion toward bicycles.


Let me spell it out as clearly as I can. Here's what you wrote previously:



dissident said:


> The ones beating that dead horse aren't the "classical devotees". At least not exclusively. Anyway the "classical is no better/more sophisticated/more beautiful/ more artistic than ______" harangues are getting tiresome too, especially considering this is a classical music forum.


In the underlined sentence, you imply that pronouncements such as "classical is better/more sophisticated/more beautiful/more artistic than genre X" should be expected - possibly even encouraged - because this is a classical music forum. But these pronouncements don't "discuss classical music," they root for it over other genres as you would your favorite sports team. "Mozart's music is great" discusses classical music; "Mozart's music is great, unlike that crap they play on the radio nowadays" is getting away from that. When classical devotees try to "prove" classical music's superiority over other genres in the middle of a thread, they are the ones causing a potential discussion to devolve into mindless rooting. Reminding devotees that classical music isn't superior beats a dead horse, but it's an effort to resume discussion by closing off a needless digression.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

ZJovicic said:


> Because of all this I am a bit frustrated with sort of autistic and ignorant attitude that classical music community has towards popular music,


Whereas the completely ignorant attitude everyone else and the general public has towards classical music and being drowned in pop muzak in virtually any public space is not frustrating at all but just the way it is...



> - not following closely developments in the popular music, as if they are not important. In fact this can't be further from truth. I think classical community can learn a lot from the likes of Frank Sinatra, PJ Harvey, Pink Floyd, The Beach Boys, etc...
> - keeping strong the separation between 2 realms. I think it's bad for both classical and popular music. For classical it's bad because it prevents it for engaging with wider music scene, and it keeps it from learning from it, and it keeps it from engaging in free competition with all the other genres. It's also bad for popular music, because no matter how exceptionally good it gets it can't be included in the canon of high culture. Which means it doesn't get enough attention from Universities, conservatories, academies, it doesn't get included in the music education in schools, kids don't learn about it in school... Even though in real life it is *the mainstream*, academia treats it as some sort of fringe. On the other hand classical music is fringe in real life, and still it gets treated as the only important type of music by academia. So academia gives some sort of privileged monopolistic position to classical music which can only be detrimental both to classical music itself (because without competition everything rots), and to all other music which gets neglected. I could even say, it's fundamentally undemocratic.


There have been colleges where you can study popular music performance since years or decades and pop culture is by now also be covered by music/culture theory (and not only in a denigrating fashion), I am pretty sure. Like you can write an English literature PhD thesis on comic books. If there is something that is not endangered in any way today, it is popular culture including nostalgic drooling over and revivals of popular culture from yesteryear. And academics rehashing it in the light of "theory".

There are also all kinds of mixing and crossover between popular and avantgarde from 70s art rock to electronic music or jazz (like Uri Caine with Mahler that was semipopular in some circles) whatever. Most of it is niche, though, and I think it is naive to expect otherwise. To achieve a mix that is both popular and of some artistic value is like hitting the jackpot. One gets one "West Side Story" but a dozen like "Phantom of the Opera" or worse. And similarly for Piazzola etc.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> Whereas the completely ignorant attitude everyone else and the general public has towards classical music and being drowned in pop muzak in virtually any public space is not frustrating at all but just the way it is...


It is frustrating, and it is just the way it is - it's naive to get into something as niche as classical music and then complain about being misunderstood.

You could say that closed-minded curmudgeons on a classical music forum aren't likely to change their ways either, but at least they can be challenged to see their closed-mindedness, something we can't easily do with whoever decides on the music blasting out of random storefronts.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> All genres allow for a wide variety of individual expression within the basic style, but if the individual goes too far, he will enter a different genre.
> 
> However, from your list I would strike Duane Allman's name since he exhibited a strong connection to Blues roots throughout his brief career. Blues, Country, and Jump Blues, were the building blocks of early Rock 'n' Roll, which eventually became simply Rock, which is now called Classic Rock.
> 
> ...


Yorke - pop

What do you mean by 'pop'. Any 3 minute melodic/rhythmic song that gets into the Billboard Hot 100 on a regular basis (as chipia has narrowly defined it)?

(I see you've edited to 'arthouse pop'...that needs defining too.)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Old classical music is not fringe though, but contemporary is...


*All of Classical* music has a tiny audience compared to Pop, Rap, Country, and Rock.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> Yorke - pop
> 
> What do you mean by 'pop'. Any 3 minute melodic/rhythmic song that gets into the Billboard Hot 100 on a regular basis (as chipia has narrowly defined it)?


No. Genres, IMO, are defined by the kind of song that is written/performed:

A Pop song usually has three sections, Verse, Chorus and Bridge. Whereas true Country songs and Classic Rock songs have no Bridge, just Verse-Chorus. Folk songs, narrative ballads, are strophic, i.e. Verse, after Verse, with no Chorus or Bridge.

You can easily find the artists who sing/write each kind of song.

The inclusion of a Bridge, for me, makes the song more Pop than Country or Rock.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

ZJovicic said:


> One of the points a lot of people miss is that complexity (nor duration) is not the same thing as quality. There are many works that are short (or simple), and yet at the same time exceptionally good... just like there are long and complicated works that are bad.
> 
> For the prog rock I think too much effort was put into trying to make the music as complex as possible.
> 
> ...


I think one reason King Crimson, especially in their most famous incarnation, probably sounds the least dated of the prog juggernauts (and the most "progressive" in terms of anticipating art-rock development) was that they grounded their ideas in a hard-rock idiom-this, and that they frequently took inspiration from contemporary influences and not past ones.

Of course taste, etc etc etc. I do like a lot of "true" prog, I swear.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> *All of Classical* music has a tiny audience compared to Pop, Rap, Country, and Rock.


I think it depends on your background and attitude more than anything else.
I happened to like music listening sessions we had at school, where we would listen to famous pieces of classical music.
At that time there was no internet, and it was very hard to find any classical music recordings in Bosnia. It was a war, and post-war period. I dreamed about buying a CD where I could listen to Beethoven's Ninth in its entirety... Also in my family there was still some respect and even reverence towards classical music masters, even though none of them actually spent time listening to it. But they still respected it and appreciated it. I also like the romantic / heroic aspects of composers' life, especially of Beethoven.

So my attitude over time was to give sort of equal importance to classical and popular music in my life. There were periods were I leaned more to one side and periods when I leaned more to the other side... but at all times they were both present to some extent. I am not sure if I am in such a minority for including classical music in my music diet.

But the thing is... popular music still can't give me the experience as some classical pieces... But on the other hand, classical music also can get boring when you explore just it, and especially when you don't have much of direction, or when you try to be a completionist... For example I tried at times to listen to all Beethoven's piano sonatas, but ultimately I found it boring.

For symphonies though, I listened to all of them not once but many times... But for some other composers I struggle a bit more going through their cycles.

So when I get tired of classical, I explore popular, and vice versa... For me it's really kind of hard to accept that majority of people don't even give a chance even to works such as Four Seasons or Fifth Symphony or Moonlight Sonata... which are extremely accessible, and exceptionally good at the same time... I mean really who doesn't get hooked after listening to 5th symphony... he probably didn't even try to listen to it properly. Or he came into it with a negative attitude that prevented him from enjoying.

IMO whoever comes with an open mind to it, will like Fifth Symphony... or Eine kleine Nachtmusik, or stuff like that... it's impossible not to like it, IMO... (unless you listened to it 100 times, but that's a different story... I'm speaking about first time exposure... when you encounter such stuff, you can't not like it IMO...)

I also don't understand how come after a lesson about Beethoven, and his life and achievements, how is it possible for a kid not to be curious about it, and not to search it on Youtube...?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> No. Genre's IMO, are defined by the kind of song that is written/performed:
> 
> A Pop song usually has three sections, Verse, Chorus and Bridge. Whereas true Country songs and Classic Rock songs have no Bridge, just Verse-Chorus. Folk songs, narrative ballads, are strophic, i.e. Verse, after Verse, with no Chorus or Bridge.
> 
> ...


So, artists who write/play more than one kind of "song" shouldn't be pigeonholed as one thing or another?

Having never listened to music to identify such formulas, I couldn't say how much of Radiohead's output would count as 'pop' by your definition. I'd discount them as pop, because of instrumentation, subject matter/ lyrical style, delivery, choice of key/chord structure. I freely acknowledge I'm getting into dodgy territory here, as I'm using technical terms that I'm uncertain about. But compare How to Disappear Completely with, say, Perfect by Ed Sheeran and I think the difficulty is evident.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> So, artists who write/play more than one kind of "song" shouldn't be pigeonholed as one thing or another?


I pigeon-hole songs (not artists) precisely because they are easily classified and often an artist will do a variety of material.

Rod Stewart early on did mostly Rock songs, then some some Folk styled songs, but mostly Pop songs. But because of the "tone" of his entire career, if forced, I'd place him in the Pop genre. I think most artists based on the majority of the kind of material they have put out can be basically grouped onto one genre, but of course there are exceptions.



> Having never listened to music to identify such formulas, I couldn't say how much of Radiohead's output would count as 'pop' by your definition. I'd discount them as pop, because of instrumentation, subject matter/ lyrical style, delivery, choice of key/chord structure. I freely acknowledge I'm getting into dodgy territory here, as I'm using technical terms that I'm uncertain about. But compare How to Disappear Completely with, say, Perfect by Ed Sheeran and I think the difficulty is evident.


For me, Pop, can be incredibly creative and have an artsy style, e.g. Peter Gabriel, but I think many people see it as the most superficial kind of music played on the radio.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Zappa -Fusion Jazz


I don't think it's a good idea to pigeonhole Zappa. Just wanted to point that out. He did _some_ jazz fusion, but this certainly wasn't something you could label his music as being.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

And now we see the problem of defining music genres in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions: it's pretty much impossible.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> All genres allow for a wide variety of individual expression within the basic style, but if the individual goes too far, he will enter a different genre.


Or, expand the possibilities of an existing genre. Or even in rare cases, help create a new and different genre. But all great artists offer some combination of the new and the traditional, whether the "new" is revolutionary or subtle. Look at Mark O'Connor, for example. He started out as a supreme bluegrass fiddle virtuoso, winning the Grand National contest for the first time at the age of 13. And yes, he went on to become a major bluegrass star in Nashville and on TV. But he also studied jazz violin with Stephane Grapelli and mastered that jazz style as much as any Grapelli successor could, and also mastered classical violin on the highest level, composing in all these styles on a high level, including classical string quartets and concertos, bringing a bluegrass flavor to jazz and classical, and vice versa. You can find him on youtube jamming with Wynton Marsalis and his band, and performing his concertos with the Boston Symphony.

In the end, he stayed true to his bluegrass roots, but I think he contributed significantly to all three genres. Certainly, his approach to bluegrass fiddling has been hugely influential on the generation following him.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Or, expand the possibilities of an existing genre. Or even in rare cases, help create a new and different genre. But all great artists offer some combination of the new and the traditional, whether the "new" is revolutionary or subtle. Look at Mark O'Connor, for example. He started out as a supreme bluegrass fiddle virtuoso, winning the Grand National contest for the first time at the age of 13. And yes, he went on to become a major bluegrass star in Nashville and on TV. But he also studied jazz violin with Stephane Grapelli and mastered that jazz style as much as any Grapelli successor could, and also mastered classical violin on the highest level, composing in all these styles on a high level, including classical string quartets and concertos, bringing a bluegrass flavor to jazz and classical, and vice versa. You can find him on youtube jamming with Wynton Marsalis and his band, and performing his concertos with the Boston Symphony.
> 
> In the end, he stayed true to his bluegrass roots, but I think he contributed significantly to all three genres.


I agree with all you wrote, but I still think of Mark O'Connor as at one time, the busiest A-List studio fiddle player in Nashville, having played on thousands of Country songs. That is, until Nashville producers stopped hiring fiddle players. Hence, genres can change while the stylistically true artists move to the fringes.

Today, Nashville Country is form of Pop music.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I pigeon-hole songs (not artists) precisely because they are easily classified and often an artist will do a variety of material.


But you did pigeonhole artists in post #137. I don't agree that "songs" can be pigeonholed either. Yes, some are written to a standard template, but there is, and has been a great variety of popular music composed over the last, say, 70 years (if we go back roughly to the start of rock 'n roll) which has defied easy pigeonholing.



SanAntone said:


> if forced, I'd place him in the Pop genre.


Don't feel forced. It's not necessary.



SanAntone said:


> I think most artists based on the majority of the kind of material they have put out can be basically grouped onto one genre, but of course there are exceptions.


You may recall I posted a link to the Green Man festival a while back in another thread where 'pop' was being discussed. Over 100 artists were performing. I didn't go, and I knew few of the artists, so I can't comment on specifics, but what this suggests to me is that there are so many performers of popular music that these discussions barely scratch the surface: one might say that there is a continuum from 3 minute disposable ("superficial"?) to more extended compositions, but all drawing on a number of different traditions and playing with them, or confounding them, or aping them, or mixing them. The fact that certain artists rise to the top and are commercially promininent tends to disguise the great breadth of music that is simply less prominent.



SanAntone said:


> I think many people see it as the most superficial kind of music played on the radio.


I'm sure many people do. Many people dismiss 'pop' as superficial by definition, as in, "If I think it's superficial, it must therefore be pop".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> But you did pigeonhole artists in post #137. I don't agree that "songs" can be pigeonholed either. Yes, some are written to a standard template, but there is, and has been a great variety of popular music composed over the last, say, 70 years (if we go back roughly to the start of rock 'n roll) which has defied easy pigeonholing.
> 
> Don't feel forced. It's not necessary.
> 
> ...


Well, I have a clear idea of genres in my own mind, and don't have any trouble with the idea. You may not agree with my classifications, but I am not concerned with whether others accept my decisions or not - these are purely for my own use.

I also don't think of genres as implying an artistic quality hierarchy. What I listen for is quality as I determine it according to my taste, no matter what genre I consider the material.


----------

