# Pop musicans vs film composers?



## kanonathena (Jun 25, 2010)

Hello, 

I was thinking about what the big deal is with Beatles. People on internet kept saying how innovative they are. So my question is how do you compare the musical talent of a top pop musicians like Beatles and Micheal Jackson vs top film composers like John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith?

Is there any pop musician comparable to a top classical composer? There are pop musicians that went to become film composers (Danny Elfman and Hans Zimmer), so I guess in general pop musicians are at the bottom of the food chain?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

They're in completely different categories. And classical composers (and modern classical composers) are in another completely different category. While pop musicians rely on lyrics and standard forms and progression to get an idea across, film composers generally rely on visuals--which, IMHO, is a much purer form of expression than the one pop musicians use. Film composers are also generally freer with their forms than pop musicians, due to the way film music is composed, with each piece of the movie given a "cue," which later becomes a short segment of music--a phrase or two at most--with a specific purpose. The film composer then has to link those cues together in a way that makes sense to the listener, which means that standard forms such as binary, ternary, rondo, etc. can't generally be used consistently.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Soundtrack composers are _Art Music_ composers.

Pop artists are _Pop Music_ composers (although that word is avoided for them, they're simply known as artists).


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Soundtrack composers are _Art Music_ composers.
> 
> Pop artists are _Pop Music_ composers (although that word is avoided for them, they're simply known as artists).


I disagree. A better dichotomy would be between _entertainment music_ and _art music_, the difference being that _art music_ is produced in order to be art, and therefore may or may not have a purpose in its aesthetic design, while _entertainment music_ is produced in order to entertain, and therefore must have the purpose of entertainment in its aesthetic design. Both pop artists and film composers generally produce _entertainment music_, though there are a few pieces that definitely blur the distinction.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> I disagree. A better dichotomy would be between _entertainment music_ and _art music_, the difference being that _art music_ is produced in order to be art, and therefore may or may not have a purpose in its aesthetic design, while _entertainment music_ is produced in order to entertain, and therefore must have the purpose of entertainment in its aesthetic design. Both pop artists and film composers generally produce _entertainment music_, though there are a few pieces that definitely blur the distinction.


Yeah "entertainment music" is a better word than pop music. Still, I don't like to think of Soundtracks or Art Music as _not_ meant for entertainment, if you know what I mean. Of course, I agree, there are a lot of Art Music composers out there that simply don't care about aesthetics which is suicidal IMO.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

One important distinction is that the ultimate product of pop music is the recording and the ultimate product of film music (and also classical) is the score, i.e. the composer-performer relationship.

Only a performance/recording of a pop song by the original performer would be considered the real pop song, while a performance by another person is considered a cover. Pop music is linked to particular performers.

On the other hand, a performance of a film score by any orchestra is considered the real thing.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yeah "entertainment music" is a better word than pop music. Still, I don't like to think of Soundtracks or Art Music as _not_ meant for entertainment, if you know what I mean. Of course, I agree, there are a lot of Art Music composers out there that simply don't care about aesthetics which is suicidal IMO.


And of those in popular music ('entertainment' if you will) there are also artists that not only seek to just entertain but also have artistic goals. I can imagine that, say, Pink Floyd or Bob Dylan go into a recording studio with a different mindset than Mariah Carey or Justin Bieber. But even super commercial music can have artistic worth in my opinion. As a simple example, the song and choreography of Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" is an inspired piece of work. It has lost it's impact somewhat because we've seen it a million times by now, but the first time I saw/heard it it was mesmerizing. I don't really care if pop musicians would make good movie composers (or vice versa). To me it's all about if you're good at what you do, not whether you would be able to do something else.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

kanonathena said:


> so I guess in general pop musicians are at the bottom of the food chain?


Well, at least some of them have the millions of pounds, the legions of fans, the gold and platinum records, the music awards, and the actual cultural relevance to console themselves with when they are reminded that some people think they are at the bottom of the musical food chain.


----------

