# Why is there a gap between non classical music today and classical music today?



## iso (Apr 16, 2017)

Movie music = not dissonant
Electronic music = not dissonant
Pop music = not dissonant

Many of the above compositions are simplistic, just revolving around a few phrases, yet they are catchy.

Postmodern classical music = dissonant 

These compositions are not catchy.

...What has caused the divide between non classical music and classical music? Maybe I have a misunderstanding somewhere


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Actually, a lot of movie music is pretty dissonant, especially the stuff associated with the bad guys. 

As for the stylistic differences between classical and non-classical genres, I don't think that's a new phenomenon. Throughout history, classical music has tended to be more complex - and more dissonant - than other genres such as folk music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

There are exceptions, but I think overall I think you're right, those are generally not dissonant, at least much of the more financially successful kind. That is the main reason why, it is to appeal to the masses who have low tolerance for dissonant music, to generate more money. Postmodern classical is a niche market to appeal to more adventurous and progressive tastes. Most classical music listeners still prefer less dissonant music from earlier eras, just human nature in general.


----------



## iso (Apr 16, 2017)

Did not consider that this was not something new. Thank you for clearing up a misconception.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

iso said:


> Did not consider that this was not something new. Thank you for clearing up a misconception.


And I say amen to this.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

iso said:


> Movie music = not dissonant
> Electronic music = not dissonant
> Pop music = not dissonant
> ...
> ...





Bettina said:


> Actually, a lot of movie music is pretty dissonant, especially the stuff associated with the bad guys.
> 
> As for the stylistic differences between classical and non-classical genres, I don't think that's a new phenomenon. Throughout history, classical music has tended to be more complex - and more dissonant - than other genres such as folk music.





Phil loves classical said:


> There are exceptions, but I think overall I think you're right ... Postmodern classical is a niche market to appeal to more adventurous and progressive tastes. Most classical music listeners still prefer less dissonant music from earlier eras, just human nature in general.


Face it! Pop music remains fairly old-fashioned. Conservative. The musical language is mainly the stuff of Schubert, theory-wise. Of course I love Schubert, but the composer died in 1828. Time to progress.

Movie music is certainly both tonal and dissonant, depending upon the needs of the scene. And electronic music includes folks like Japanese artist Merzbow, which is hardly "easy listening".

Jazz gives us some progression in the musical elements such as harmony, which has a lot to do with how we perceive the progression of music. The harmonies of Baroque and Classical music are simpler overall than those of Romanticism. A big deal is made of Wagner, in the _Tristan und Isolde_ music, of how his harmonies are progressive. Debussy the "impressionist" gives us more daring harmonies. It's hard to spot a ninth or eleventh chord, or even diminished and augmented sevenths in Beethoven (recall the opening chord of Ludwig's First Symphony, a chord which is so adventurous, sort of announcing of Beethoven that "I am here, and I am new and adventurous", but it quickly resolves into simpler, more classically standard harmonic structure), but "advanced chordal structures" are common in the impressionists. Of course, Schoenberg, who flourishes at the height of impressionism, breaks down all our ideas of harmony to create sound forms that rely on different rules of structuring than traditional Western harmony, which was forged in late Medieval church music.

One must consider that there is a scientific basis for harmony, overtones and such sounds that hit the human ear as "consonant" rather than "dissonant". But art is often not compliant with what is scientifically satisfactory. So much literature defies normal operating procedure, or what we call the laws of physics, simply because the imagination knows no bounds of physics. So much graphic art of our modern times is much beyond photographic realism. So much modern music reshapes the standard concepts that governed "easy listening" of the past.

Charles Ives remarked that most people listen to music with their feet. I've always appreciated this conclusion. It seems true. But artists can listen to music with their intellects and their imaginations, too. That word "art" and what it might mean has a lot to do with what is at stake here. Art is a philosophical stance, and so much contemporary music is grounded not in natural harmonics but in philosophical points of view. There is nothing wrong with this, but it leads to "strange" sounding music. And those who listen to music with their feet have problems adjusting, probably because philosophy is not as easy as is here-and-now reality. Philosophy is often conjectural in nature, and it takes leaps of faith and historical knowledge for comparisons, and vast pools of information in order to coalesce as a "thing". Compare philosophy class to accounting class. Two very different realities, one with definite conclusions, the other with ... the stuff that dreams are made on. Art music resides in this philosophical world.

We won't soon expect folks to throw out their wall hangings of photographic realism (even if it is rather imaginary such as a group of dogs playing cards painted on black velvet) and adopt contemporary abstract expressionism, because the comfort factor of familiarity is still a real thing. Sophocles' Oedipus says "There's comfort in familiar faces," and that ancient truth remains with us. There is comfort in natural harmony.

But there have always been explorers, always in the minority, and there will continue to be an audience (albeit a smaller one than for the conservative stuff) for new and adventurous music. Appreciation of such stuff does take some work, but we who love the idea of "art" are willing to do that work. Simple pleasures are fine. But difficult pleasures generally prove, at least in my experience and I'm sure in many of yours, to be more substantial and meaningful.

Contemporary art is a difficult pleasure, but well worth the effort for those capable few willing to take on the adventure. In the larger scheme of things it will not disappoint.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> There are exceptions, but I think overall I think you're right, those are generally not dissonant, at least much of the more financially successful kind. That is the main reason why, it is to appeal to the masses who have low tolerance for dissonant music, to generate more money. Postmodern classical is a niche market to appeal to more adventurous and progressive tastes. Most classical music listeners still prefer less dissonant music from earlier eras, just human nature in general.


Adventurous, perhaps, but "progressive" is a matter of perspective. In driving, once you have reached your destination, continuing onward is no longer progress.


----------

