# Non-Classical Music



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

In general, why is there little interest in the study and development of music from a theoretical perspective in non-Classical genres.

I'm talking about exploring the relationships of notes on a page, not experimenting on a guitar while high.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Couchie said:


> non-Classical genres


i hate jazz because it has no meanings to convey, it just deals with the environment to create an atmosphere for drinking martini and so on.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

sharik said:


> i hate jazz because it has no meanings to convey, it just deals with the environment to create an atmosphere for drinking martini and so on.


That's a very one dimensional view of jazz. Some jazz is actually quite experimental and I feel bears quite a close relation to modern classical.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I suppose quite a lot of popular music is more simple and direct rather 'academic', and some of it is also quite instinctual in that sense also. Of course music like all art doesn't necessarily keep to the boundaries that listeners want to make for it, so there has been crossover with more 'academic' (for want of a better word) styles, such as within some jazz or progressive music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

sharik said:


> i hate jazz because it has no meanings to convey, it just deals with the environment to create an atmosphere for drinking martini and so on.


I assume that was brilliant sarcasm.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The training in post-secondary schools that focus on popular music and jazz is incredibly theoretically intensive. I think some rock artists have an attitude similar to the one you've described, but they only form one subset of non-classical music. I also think many classical composers have done some experimenting while high.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The main intellectual realm of "pop" music regards technology.

This gets to a thing that divides classical and to a degree even jazz listeners - what place does technology have in the creation of music?

In classical, we pretty much all agree that technology should give us more "accurate" recordings, but that's where the agreement stops. You amplify a vocalist, and you've got a minor scandal. And as for Stockhausen, taped sound, all that.... We don't need to go there _yet again_ in this thread - there have been hundreds for that.

In jazz, there are still a few people left who do not agree with the use of electronic instruments, who reject fusion as a betrayal of "real jazz." They're basically dying off, but you can still find them.

But the pop music traditions embrace new technology with fervor, and that is where most of the intellectual work gets done. Ian McDonald is a good example (though anyone from the Beatles to Harold Faltermeyer to whoever produced Gangnam Style music could be used): his career hasn't been about novel harmonies or polyrhythms or modalities, but about finding new ways to make sounds with keyboards, from the mellotron to synthesizers and other synthesizers and so on. Where you and I hear Foreigner as just some really predictable pop music, he hears experimentation with keyboard technology.

Now the question is, who's right? Is the classical music fan right to ignore and even decry anything electric (except of course faithful recordings)? Or is the producer of pop music right to ignore most of music theory and focus on making cool new sounds?

I need to learn more about electronica, ambient, all that kind of stuff. I suspect the answer is in there somewhere. But you've got to give people like Herbie Hancock or Jeff Beck or Jan Hammer credit too, for working on both of them at once throughout their entire career. Oh, and Stockhausen and Nono and Reich and so on. People like Kronos Quartet and Bang on a Can and the Now Ensemble and heck, just about everyone under 40.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Maybe the view on classical music is skewed by the centuries it has been around for and the more slow developing technological changes that were evident then. But modern classical can certainly use more electronic aspects to the music, and developments in recording technology have influenced composition I am sure.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> *Maybe the view on classical music is skewed by the centuries it has been around for and the more slow developing technological changes that were evident then.* But modern classical can certainly use more electronic aspects to the music, and developments in recording technology have influenced composition I am sure.


That's true. After all there was a time when a piano was a new technology, and it spent decades improving. All the instruments have a history like that. So the history of classical music is also in part the history of musical technology.

(Except that for some reason it got frozen around 1930. That's an overstatement, of course, since there were always the likes of Xenakis trying new stuff out, and they were often ahead of pop music as well. But they were and remain outsiders.)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Couchie said:


> In general, why is there little interest in the study and development of music from a theoretical perspective in non-Classical genres.
> 
> I'm talking about exploring the relationships of notes on a page, not experimenting on a guitar while high.


Specifically in the folk idiom, the transmission method is concerned more with the spirit of the music and passing on a tradition than with the analysis of the music.

A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it.
-- Sir Thomas Beecham


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

sharik said:


> i hate jazz because it has no meanings to convey, it just deals with the environment to create an atmosphere for drinking martini and so on.


That says more about the listener's approach to the music than the music itself. About as valid as those who listen to classical music because "it's so relaxing".


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

starry said:


> That's a very one dimensional view of jazz


okay, give me at least one example where a jazz piece has a meaning to express?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

sharik said:


> okay, give me at least one example where a jazz piece has a meaning to express?


Help me understand what you mean by "a meaning" and we will get this done for you.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Un-*******-believable, sharik has derailed the thread on the very first page, and with the very first response, no less. Bravo.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

science said:


> You amplify a vocalist, and you've got a minor scandal.


but I don't think that's necessary the way to go with vocal music. I'd personally like more sound expansion per se, as in other vocal techniques incorporated or developed, which, for all I know, might already be happening with the new operas being written.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

science said:


> Help me understand what you mean by "a meaning"


in this case 'meaning' is some thing you feel an urge or relevance to share with the rest of the world through a piece of art you create, that is, a *message*.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

sharik said:


> in this case 'meaning' is some thing you feel an urge or relevance to share with the rest of the world through a piece of art you create, that is, a *message*.


John Coltrane, A Love Supreme


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

science said:


> John Coltrane, A Love Supreme







- the aforementioned Love Supreme doesn't show in the music at all, because you can name any thing anything, but that wouldn't mean this is it.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

sharik said:


> - the aforementioned Love Supreme doesn't show in the music at all, because you can name any thing anything, but that wouldn't mean this is it.


So, music has a "meaning" if it illustrates what its programmatic title says? What about music that has none?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Ebab said:


> So, music has a "meaning" if it illustrates what its programmatic title says?


not always, for example symphonies tend to have no titles while being overwhelmed with meanigns and messages.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

sharik said:


> i hate jazz because it has no meanings to convey, it just deals with the environment to create an atmosphere for drinking martini and so on.


For centuries, people went to the opera to drink, judge each others' wardrobe, exchange the latest gossip, have a nap, snack, flirt (or more), and a look at the stage whenever they felt like something good was on. It was accessible entertainment, and everybody took from it what they felt like taking. Nothing wrong with that at all, and it tells nothing about the quality of the music that was being played.



> not always, for example symphonies tend to have no titles while being overwhelmed with meanigns and messages.


I quite agree. So we are well advised not to dismiss symphony with a zingy one-liner; the judgement could fall back onto us.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Ebab said:


> For centuries, people went to the opera to drink, judge each others' wardrobe, exchange the latest gossip, have a nap, snack, flirt (or more)


and they still do... however, the operas that survived the test of time have lots more to offer than jazz classics have, and (since Wagner has made a revolution by putting out lights in the hall leaving only the stage lit) the opera has become much more than just an entertainment.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

sharik said:


> not always, for example symphonies tend to have no titles while being overwhelmed with meanigns and messages.


Aha, I see what you are trying to say, you don't like jazz because it does not evoke the same kind of emotions and subjective "meanings and messages" (as you call them) that you get from symphonies, as you say. In this case it may be a matter of qualia, subjective character of experience etc. to cause you to have these emotional responses to these pieces of music which make you enjoy it to jazz, which does nothing for you. Everyone is different in this sense, and it is wrong not to accept that fact. I get sick and tired of seeing all over the internet people fighting for their opinions and trying to force them upon others when really it is just a simple...unsolved psychological...thing like qualia... :lol:

But perhaps it will be better to put this matter aside for the moment and get back to the topic of the thread.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> But perhaps it will be better to put this matter aside for the moment and get back to the topic of the thread.


Come now, CoAG, wouldn't you rather engage in nonsensical bickering that has nothing to do with the topic at hand? It's _in_ this season!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Come now, CoAG, wouldn't you rather engage in nonsensical bickering that has nothing to do with the topic at hand? It's _in_ this season!


Okay then, have it your way..........

*SIBELIUS IS AWESOME*


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> you don't like jazz because it does not evoke the same kind of emotions and subjective "meanings and messages" (as you call them) that you get from symphonies


if we take for example pop-music, it does have meanings and messages to convey however shallow those are, but jazz simply has nothing to say because its just hollow rhytms and melodies... and that's from an *objective* point of view, not subjective one.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

sharik said:


> if we take for example pop-music, it does have meanings and messages to convey however shallow those are, but jazz simply has nothing to say because its just hollow rhytms and melodies... and that's from an *objective* point of view, not subjective one.


The phrase "point of view" automatically makes it subjective. 
And your wording: "shallow," "just hollow rhythms and melodies" shows bias.

I don't understand why you persist on enforcing your opinion on others and continue derailing the thread, I will not be participating in this discussion any longer.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The phrase "point of view" automatically makes it subjective


then here's a contradiction to solve which we should take to philosophers, who in their turn might well say 'everything is subjective' etc, but anyway we have yet to decide whether we do away with jazz or not?


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

I realize I made a mistake by merely answering to that second posting. Sorry for that. I hope the thread is not terminally derailed.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

sharik said:


> then here's a contradiction to solve which we should take to philosophers


Your total ignorance of everything you talk about is not the responsibility of any philosopher to put right. I am sick of seeing you take every conversation in which you partake and turn it in to irrelevant and meaningless drivel. If you want to talk about your dislike of jazz, *start your own thread about it*, don't ruin other people's threads with your inane self-congratulatory and pseudo-intellectual nuggets of absolute garbage information.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> Your total ignorance of everything


point out exactly where did i show any ignorance?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

sharik said:


> if we take for example pop-music, it does have meanings and messages to convey however shallow those are, but jazz simply has nothing to say because its just hollow rhytms and melodies... and that's from an *objective* point of view, not subjective one.


Objective? "Hollow" is as subjective as a judgment can be.

So as I suspected, "meaning" is sufficiently vacuous to enable you dismiss anything that you want to dismiss. You don't hear a message in "A Love Supreme," ergo - as after all you are the God of this subject - there is none.

Basically, you don't like jazz, and you're trying to justify your dislike. Relax, dude. Just dislike it and get on with your life without the intellectual writhing.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

science said:


> Objective? "Hollow" is as subjective as a judgment can be


yes *objective* because the very idea of jazz is built on the premise that its rhytm and melody must be devoid of any meaning and contain no message, in the first place.



science said:


> "meaning" is sufficiently vacuous to enable you dismiss anything that you want to dismiss


no, on the contrary, it preserves us from dismissing what has true value.



science said:


> You don't hear a message in "A Love Supreme," ergo - as after all you are the God of this subject - there is none


you and me and that guy do not hear it because there's actually none.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

sharik said:


> yes *objective* because the very idea of jazz is built on the premise that its rhytm and melody must be devoid of any meaning and contain no message, in the first place.
> 
> no, on the contrary, it preserves us from dismissing what has true value.
> 
> you and me and that guy do not hear it because there's actually none.


Actually lots of people hear it. That's one reason it's generally regarded as one of the greatest jazz albums of all time.

Besides, this essentialist nonsense about "the very idea of jazz" and "true value" and so on is ridiculous. Your opinions are only your opinions, no matter how fervently or stubbornly you project them onto an "objective" screen. But thanks to the remarkable combination of how poorly you support them and how pretentiously you present them, your opinions are worth even less than other people's.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

science said:


> Actually lots of people hear it


then they hear 'voices' and need to see the doctor.



science said:


> Your opinions are only your opinions


nope, in this case its not my opinion, i only try to express that of the history of the arts.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I have a suspicion the next argument will be that jazz is not "spiritual", because it is American music, and it is common knowledge that Americans have no soul


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Ebab said:


> I realize I made a mistake by merely answering to that second posting. Sorry for that. I hope the thread is not terminally derailed.


Given that Couchie made this thread about non-classical music in the first place, I doubt that he will be overly disappointed with the way it has gone.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

sharik said:


> then they hear 'voices' and need to see the doctor.
> 
> nope, in this case its not my opinion, i only try to express that of the history of the arts.


Well, I suspect your intentions here are not susceptible to charitable description, and anyway at this point probably all fair-minded people will be able to tell who has made the better points here, so further discussion is unnecessary.

To anyone who hoped to discuss Couchie's OP, I apologize. To be frank, I didn't think he was serious, or if he was, I didn't understand what he meant. For instance, was the phrase "notes on a page" _intended_ to eliminate traditions like jazz or gamelan music or Indian classical music? Or was Indian classical music included in "non-classical?" If the "notes on a page" bit wasn't meant to be taken literally, then he can't be serious - he can't claim to KNOW that Turkish music, Korean music, Tibetan music, and so on across all the world's musical traditions don't "explore the relationships of notes." And I'm sure he can't describe bebop or modal jazz as not exploring "relationships of notes," even in the limited or specific sense of harmonic relationships. In short, I'm not sure there was much to derail.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Couchie said:


> In general, why is there little interest in the study and development of music from a theoretical perspective in non-Classical genres.
> 
> I'm talking about exploring the relationships of notes on a page, not experimenting on a guitar while high.


I can't talk about the big picture, but I think with the new generation of players, there will be interest. 
An example - my teacher is a baroque violin virtuoso who in between quite prestigious gigs (eg tonight he's playing Monteverdi vespers at the Royal Albert Hall) teaches school pupils as well as me. One of his pupils, a teenage boy, doesn't like classical music all that much so he is adapting motown music to teach him techniques & theories. At a recent Baroque concert my teacher played 'Don' worry about the Chaconne' in a baroque style. And btw, he rates jazz as well & certainly wouldn't agree with all the abuse above. A lot of his baroque playing involves improvisation & that is apparently what was done in the baroque era too; jazz is carrying on the tradition.

I think in twenty years' time, there will be people who will treat non-classical music like jazz with respect & who will be able to analyse the theory of it.

So there!


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I have a suspicion the next argument will be that jazz is not "spiritual"


thanks for the cue!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

sharik said:


> thanks for the cue!


All music is spiritual.

Sharik - who's been rattling your cage?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I prefer _Giant Steps_ from Coltrane. I also feel, great musicians as Coltrane and Miles Davis are, that there's quite a few other jazz albums at least as much worth hearing about that have received nothing like the hype of _A Love Supreme_ or _Kind of Blue_.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> All music is spiritual.


The key word here is *music*. Rap, a lot of pop and that awful computer-generated noise that DJs play in night clubs is not music, and therefore not spiritual.



> Sharik - who's been rattling your cage?


That, dear friends, is the typical Russian behavior on Internet forums.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> I prefer _Giant Steps_ from Coltrane. I also feel, great musicians as Coltrane and Miles Davis are, that *there's quite a few other jazz albums at least as much worth hearing about that have received nothing like the hype of A Love Supreme or Kind of Blue.*


I think you'll find lots of agreement on that point.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

starry said:


> I prefer _Giant Steps_ from Coltrane. I also feel, great musicians as Coltrane and Miles Davis are, that there's quite a few other jazz albums at least as much worth hearing about that have received nothing like the hype of _A Love Supreme_ or _Kind of Blue_.


I know very little of Coltrane and overall, he may be out of reach for me - but he made these divine cuts with crooner Johnny Hartman (and I realize at a time when he made much more challenging music as well). A man without musical pigeonholes? Just my type.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> The key word here is *music*. Rap, a lot of pop and that awful computer-generated noise that DJs play in night clubs is not music, and therefore not spiritual.
> 
> That, dear friends, is the typical Russian behavior on Internet forums.


Absolutely. The key word is 'music'. Agreed. But jazz is music & therefore can be spiritual, in my view.

The second comment I don't understand. I was only wondering why Sharik seems to want to change the original point of the thread into an abuse of jazz.

Perhaps I could have put it more politely...  (Sorry!)


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Couchie said:


> In general, why is there little interest in the study and development of music from a theoretical perspective in non-Classical genres.
> 
> I'm talking about exploring the relationships of notes on a page, not experimenting on a guitar while high.


When I think about it, I'm surprised to learn that there is little interest in studying music theory via non-classical genres. I'd have thought there were university courses devoted to that. Are you sure, Couchie?

If you're right, maybe it's because there are fewer people with the requisite qualifications nowadays & therefore they gravitate into classical music. Maybe they fear that if they analyse the theory of non-classical music seriously, people will accuse them of 'dumbing down'?

But as I said above, I can't believe the situation will be permanent, if it is indeed as you say.

Does anyone actually have any information on the state of academic musicology?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> All music is spiritual


then jazz isn't music.
in terms of spirituality, even hip-hop and rap make much more sense than jazz.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> Sharik seems to want to change the original point of the thread


i'm actually perfectly on topic


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

sharik said:


> i'm actually perfectly on topic


Of course you are. And the moon is made of green cheese.

Have a nice day, sharik. Chill out & listen to some music you can understand.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> If you're right, maybe it's because there are fewer people with the requisite qualifications nowadays & therefore they gravitate into classical music. Maybe they fear that if they analyse the theory of non-classical music seriously, people will accuse them of 'dumbing down'?
> 
> But as I said above, I can't believe the situation will be permanent, if it is indeed as you say.
> 
> Does anyone actually have any information on the state of academic musicology?


Jazz and non-classical theory have become prominent in the last few decades, and careers have been made with musicologists who have never studied classical music in-depth. Jazz theorists tend to be knowledgeable about their subject, but I have little to no respect for so-called rock and pop "theorists", whose perspective is usually as sociologically as it is musically oriented, if not more.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingenue said:


> When I think about it, I'm surprised to learn that there is little interest in studying music theory via non-classical genres. I'd have thought there were university courses devoted to that. Are you sure, Couchie?
> 
> If you're right, maybe it's because there are fewer people with the requisite qualifications nowadays & therefore they gravitate into classical music. Maybe they fear that if they analyse the theory of non-classical music seriously, people will accuse them of 'dumbing down'?
> 
> ...


Scholars study pretty much every kind of music they can find out about from anywhere in the world, and they study it from every angle (music theory, sociology, whatever) that they can think of.

As for jazz, here's something interesting along those lines: Analyzing Jazz: A Schenkerian Approach


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Jazz and non-classical theory have become prominent in the last few decades, and careers have been made with musicologists who have never studied classical music in-depth. Jazz theorists tend to be knowledgeable about their subject, but I have little to no respect for so-called rock and pop "theorists", whose perspective is usually as sociologically as it is musically oriented, if not more.


What is your sense of the state of the study of non-western traditions?

I know that they're studied anthropologically/sociologically/musicologically, but how about the theory of them?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> What is your sense of the state of the study of non-western traditions?
> 
> I know that they're studied anthropologically/sociologically/musicologically, but how about the theory of them?


That is a question I'd leave to one who's more "in the environment" of current academia, so to speak, but my sense is that ethnomusicologists tend to be more interested in practice and sociological factors than theoretical ones.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> That is a question I'd leave to one who's more "in the environment" of current academia, so to speak, but my sense is that ethnomusicologists tend to be more interested in practice and sociological factors than theoretical ones.


This is my impression too, though as only a student I have limited view. Even at an institution like Oxford, however, not known for its forward-looking attitude, we have to study "Global Hip-Hop" as compulsory for 1st year course. It is quite controversial.

Nevertheless, it seems entirely studied from a sociological point of view. A lot of music scholarship is these days - of all the historical topics we study this year only Schubert seems to have escaped from this, presumably because he so close to the heart of the traditional Western Classical canon.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

science said:


> Scholars study pretty much every kind of music they can find out about from anywhere in the world, and they study it from every angle (music theory, sociology, whatever) that they can think of.
> 
> As for jazz, here's something interesting along those lines: Analyzing Jazz: A Schenkerian Approach


Jazz is actually the easiest non-Classical music genre to apply analytical methods too, as I suppose that book demonstrates. It is actually often better suited to them than early medieval repertoires and the like.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Un-*******-believable, sharik has derailed the thread on the very first page, and with the very first response, no less. Bravo.


I've learned, over what now seems in retrospect to be a silly amount of decades before I figured it out, that there is generally no stopping people's characteristic behaviors... and that is, sadly, too-*******-believable 

From a pal of mine: A concert pianist, out with a few of the musicians from 'the band' post concert, talking about himself and 'his music' and other of his performances, all in a lengthy running monologue, pauses, looks around to the people with him and then says,

"Well! Enough about me.

So, what did you think of my performance tonight?"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

sharik said:


> i hate jazz because it has no meanings to convey, it just deals with the environment to create an atmosphere for drinking martini and so on.


Right after you explain, explicitly, what you mean by 'meanings to convey,' and how you find / believe there are 'meanings to convey' in a work made up entirely of 'a bunch of notes', without vocals, text, nickname / subtitle, called, "Symphony No. X in (key)


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

sharik said:


> then jazz isn't music.
> in terms of spirituality, even hip-hop and rap make much more sense than jazz.


Would you consider admitting, just once, that you have no clue what you're talking about. In the 30s, 40s, even 50s, what we now call "Jazz" (or a least a major part of that) was merely the popular music of its day. It was the Golden Age of the Great American Songbook, with people like George and Ira Gershwin, Harold Arlen, Johnny Mercer, Rodgers and Hart, and many more. These songs were played on Broadway, in the movies, on the radio, and sold as sheet music like sliced bread. At the same time, there were these artists -- instrumentalists, vocalists -- who took the tunes and transformed them in their own style -- and it was _equally_ successful. Today, we think of Billie Holiday as this tormented soul, but in her day, she was a freakin' Pop star who sold millions of records. And don't get me started on Sarah Vaughan, the ever-hip Anita O'Day, and the eternal (let's meet again in 200 years and see whom they're playing) Ella Fitzgerald.

This music is hip, it is smart, it has emotion, and it is here to stay.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> In general, why is there little interest in the study and development of music from a theoretical perspective in non-Classical genres...I'm talking about exploring the relationships of notes on a page, not experimenting on a guitar while high.


Well, let me put down this joint for a second, turn off my amplifier, and I'll tell you why. :lol:

The "study and development of music from a theoretical perspective" would be a criteria of a music which is actively dealing with these issues, as a way of "developing" musical language or dealing with the "nuts and bolts" of musical craft in a context which emphasizes "pure musical idea" and expansion of musical syntax.

I think Jazz, as a "non-classical" form, can be exempted from the OP's "innocent, non-malicious, non-elitist" query.

Pop music has different priorities than classical. It uses existing musical tools, and does not seek to expand or "evolve" the harmonic or theoretical base of musical syntax. So what?

Pop music has other criteria, such as texture, timbre, recording techniques, production, refecting social concerns and attitudes, projection of personality, good rhythmic dance grooves, and in general creating "art" which transends the boundaries of "notes on a page." Pop has a finger on the pulse of "what's happening" in the form.

As to the criticisms of rock: remember Frank Zappa, Gentle Giant, and King Crimson, for starters.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ramako said:


> Jazz is actually the easiest non-Classical music genre to apply analytical methods too, as I suppose that book demonstrates. It is actually often better suited to them than early medieval repertoires and the like.


I'd even say it's possible to overstate the distinctiveness of jazz. From Scott Joplin writing operas, to Jelly Roll Morton listening to Chopin, to Art Tatum listening to Liszt, to Ellington studying Debussy and composing tone poems, to guys like Gershwin and Milhaud going the other direction, whatever you want to say Goodman or Grofé were doing, to Charlie Parker studying Stravinsky and playing with strings, to Miles Davis' _Sketches of Spain_, Mingus and "third wave," Previn and Jarrett going both ways, and now you've got guys like Mehldau continuing that tradition, and Kapustin still doing it in the other direction.

At every single stage of its history it has self-consciously and deliberately interacted with classical music, and frequently even striven to qualify as "art" in exactly the same sense as classical music. So it really shouldn't surprise us that it's subject to analysis in the same terms.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Some points of interest. 

ABRSM has a specifically Jazz oriented performance exam syllabus. If you do "Classical" music you have to do Grade 5 theory to attempt the higher grades (6 and up). Interestingly, if you have done Practical Musicianship or a Solo Jazz subject at grade 5 you don't need to do the theory. The principle is that if you improvise, then you will have the sort of developed sense of tonality that the theory exams aim to cultivate.

Secondly, there probably is stuff out there but it comes on the wilder fringes; an example is the study of isorhythm which started with 14th and 15th century composers like Dufay or Guillaume de Machaut and then spread into Oriental Music or to quote the Encyclopedia Britannica: "As an analytical concept, isorhythm has proved valuable in connection with musical practices quite unrelated to those of the European Middle Ages—for example, peyote cult songs of certain North American Indian groups."

Thirdly, The Scottish equivalent of the ABRSM - RCS - runs folk exams but the theory element is missing and the scales are the standard Classical ones. So maybe you don't need special theory to cope with the bagpipes( - only ear defenders  ).


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

Back in high school, I took a music course in which we had to analyze (the musical and non-social/non-cultural aspects) and compare pieces from different musical cultures (with Western Classical Music being one single musical culture). If we chose Western Classical Music, we were encouraged to not compare it to Jazz or Popular music and to compare it to an entirely different musical culture. 

I found it to be an interesting assignment from which I learned a lot. However, the main problem I had with it was that it felt almost as if we were forcing a Western system of analysis onto World Music, especially when I used words like "B minor" or "tonic chord" on a piece of music written by someone from a different time and culture who most likely did not think of music with the same set of theories. We also had to provide examples and excerpts, which is best done through scores and sheet music, and a lot of the World Music looked painfully awkward when we forced it down onto a 5-lined staff. Also, the fact that we were discouraged from talking about the social and cultural aspects of the music through the assignment made it difficult to maintain the spark of interest we had for World Music at the beginning of course. 

So, I began to wonder whether we should focus on the purely musical aspects of World Music at all, and if we should, how should we approach it?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Much world music is transmitted orally, so writing it down can be irrelevant or an approximation, but it's been done. I would suggest a knowledge of tuning, which is not easy to acquire. A knowledge of cents/hertz, temperaments, interval ratios, music physics & acoustics. For example, the Thai scale divides the octave into seven equal parts. Can you convert this into "plus or minus cents figures" for comparison to our tempered notes? What's the difference between hertz and cents? What is octave equivalency? 

I think the question is, how seriously does one wish to pursue the study of World music? I recently saw a book on the history of musicology.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

R.I.O. (Rock In Opposition) shares many parralells with classical music. Take a listen to this - this would be considered a modern composition if it wasn't played by a "rock band".


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

(accidental double-post)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> The main intellectual realm of "pop" music regards technology.
> 
> This gets to a thing that divides classical and to a degree even jazz listeners - what place does technology have in the creation of music?
> 
> ...


Because the traditional acoustic instruments are all so familiar to us, people do not think of them as what they actually are: they are a complete synthesis, technology involved in the use of forming materials calculated and finely calibrated to make pitched sound. Instruments have undergone modification and downright technical evolutions over hundreds of years, including the entire string family and all the other winds and brass instruments. The first 'synthesizers' if you will, though meant to produce one family of timbre, and not with 'millions of settings,' but music synthesizers they are.

Then, consider a 'simple' virginal, clavichord, harpsichord, ORGAN, or grand piano -- technology at work, nothing 'natural' about any of them save perhaps some of the materials used.

The 'purist' argument against electronica weakens, though -- as I am fond of pointing out -- that with the acoustic instruments, you are not stuck with silence as the only option during a power blackout.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ebab said:


> I know very little of Coltrane and overall, he may be out of reach for me - but he made these divine cuts with crooner Johnny Hartman (and I realize at a time when he made much more challenging music as well). A man without musical pigeonholes? Just my type.


Many of the most creative artists don't like to limit and pigeonhole themselves too much, it's the audience that does that much more.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> The 'purist' argument against electronica weakens, though -- as I am fond of pointing out -- that with the acoustic instruments, you are not stuck with silence as the only option during a power blackout.


Amplification with microphones I guess was used because of the large concerts where to project the sound the volume had to be increased. But then people get so used to that sound that it is used even when not necessary. And recordings need the need to use a microphone to record and it changes the sound quality and people get used to that and expect it live as well? But then the modification of the sound isn't all that new maybe, because buildings in which performances are given are created with their own specific accoustics which have had a large effect on music in the past anyway.



Taggart said:


> Specifically in the folk idiom, the transmission method is concerned more with the spirit of the music and passing on a tradition than with the analysis of the music.
> 
> A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it.
> -- Sir Thomas Beecham


I sympathise with that remark of Beecham's. While like many I am definitely curious about technical analysis of music I still don't think it is necessary for my enjoyment or basic understanding of music. I would be surprised if I ever got my primary enjoyment of music from looking at a score rather than simply receiving the sounds to my ear. Most music in the final result and end point is definitely meant to be heard rather than read.


----------

