# Is non-classical just as difficult as classical?



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I found a very interesting article shared to me by my friend that would be of great interest to many members here. I know, I know, it should be in the "articles" section of the forum, but no one goes there anymore, and I thought that it would also generate a good "general classical discussion"  . The article was written by Thomas Bergersen. I do not necessarily agree with the article-I would just like to hear people's thoughts on it. There is, in particular, one important statement which could be debated (I have put the statement in bold text). The article can be found within a recent Facebook status update here.

_I just wanted to say a few things on dubstep, as some people seem to focus on it, not as the musical device that it is, but rather its status in our culture and society. People identify themselves through music, and express themselves through their taste in music. Sometimes people get so caught up in the attributions of genres that they forget what music is about in the first place. They limit themselves to certain styles because their mind is not free. Music can and should be enjoyed across all genres, regardless of social value, political statement, mainstream success, stigma and so on, because great talent is to be found in every aspect of art, from the popular to the most obscure and unknown. Dubstep has a perceived low social value because of widespread misconceptions, ignorance and bitterness. Bitterness from the UK and surrounding cultures because the US dubstep variant, Brostep, by proxy of the masterful producer Skrillex became an overnight phenomenon that completely overshadowed a decade or so of dubstep history from the country and followers of origin. Ignorance, because people do not understand the considerable talent and work that goes into high quality music of any genre, and finally misconceptions because people think dubstep is written exclusively by teenagers with laptops, no musical education or comprehension of simple musical concepts and theory. Classical music, contemporary and
traditional is considered "sophisticated", "academic", "intelligent" and so on, because the ignorant consensus is that it "obviously requires a much greater mind and skillset to write music for something as complex as an orchestra". Thus, so-called "elitist" and "purist" followers of classical/orchestral music are born, and they, like every other culturally selective group in society stick together to spread the message that the music and art that they identify themselves by is vastly superior to that which the unwashed masses enjoy, such as Justin Bieber and Skrillex.
*As someone who has written music for orchestras, choirs, metal bands, trance, country, bubblegum pop, hollywood movies and tv jingles I can assure you that neither musical genre is more sophisticated, intelligent or difficult to do than another.* I feel compelled to address the gross ignorance that is displayed increasingly frequent when people trash great pop acts of our time such as Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and so on. The collective talent, musicianship, intelligence and hard work behind these acts is unparalleled. There is a reason why these people are popular, and it's not the image or look that they carry. The music may not be to your taste, but be honest with yourself and man enough to admit that the reason you don't listen to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga is because of its perceived social stigma, your own ego and/or your views on manufactured talent packages. I myself choose to keep an open mind and never ever mix music and art with politics or as a social affiliation and identification factor. Wherever great men pave new road, greater minds will follow, and the collective great minds will eventually reach the limits of what we are intellectually capable of, only to carry this knowledge forth into new fields of discovery. The principle of evolution is as sound in the context of music as in the context of nature. Do you follow the herd or is your mind free? Think about it. Do you identify yourself through music? Do you hide behind it or do you actually choose to be free and embrace everything without prejudice? Life is so rich and full of beauty, and art is truly limitless, so why limit ourselves to the sheep mentality in our appreciation of it? Embrace without prejudice and cultivate that which resonates within you, not what resonates with others._


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bravo. It had to be said.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

The writer is a fool. This is a complete non-discussion about apples and oranges.
Of course there is talent involved in these pop acts, it's just completely different talent than the talent required for classical music. It's much more about technology and all the commercial aspects involved in making a hit song.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

"but be honest with yourself and man enough to admit that the reason you don't listen to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga is because of its perceived social stigma, your own ego and/or your views on manufactured talent packages."

Ahhh so that's why I don't listen to them!! Not because I think it's annoying and simplistic music. How enlightening.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Firstly, I don't really know what dubstep is. So I did a youtube search and randomly picked this clip. I listened to it for about five minutes and I got rather puzzled why the article was referring to dubstep and mentioning to compare with classical. Am I missing something? Dubstep / classical, is there supposed to be any relation? Did I pick a wrong dubstep clip below?






Oh, by the way, in my very humble opinion, I think dubstep is dud-crap.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

^ Ahahaha, as I was posting this thread, I said to myself, "If there is one individual that I can count on to disagree with this article, it is HarpsichordConcerto." Bravo :clap: .


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

This guy probably hasn't seriously composed classical music. Regardless of whether it's more or less difficult than other genres, it does require a completely different frame of mind. Apples and oranges, as DeepR said. "Good" for one genre isn't the same as "good" for another genre, and it might be more difficult to make "good" music for one genre than it is for another genre.

Now that I've put in my two cents, I think I'll run as fast as I can away from this thread...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The author of the article claims that all genres are equally 'difficult' to do and equally 'sophisticated'. Firstly, the difficulties depend on who's doing the doing and what the aim is. It is not just a case of whether the author is writing for orchestra and choir or writing for metal band (?) but more about what exactly the author is writing. A 3 minute commercial pop song, a music 'bed' for a visual or a 20 minute orchestral piece for the concert hall all require completely different skills that do overlap but the outcome can only be judged on it's own terms.
DeepR is correct that it is comparing apples and oranges.
Would T.S. Elliot have been a good lyricist?
Could Bernie Taupin or Hal David write a novel?


----------



## Clump (Sep 5, 2012)

He's right in saying that there is talent and effort that goes into writing/producing those other genres. But

Firstly, is is as much talent and effort that it takes to write a ******* symphony? Given that composers have to deal with the same need for good material, but need to do much more with that material, while avoiding cliches that pop music has no problem with, I'd say no.

And secondly, are the results of that effort as clearly visible? In classical music we have all sorts of thematic/motivic development, counterpoint, structure etc which is there for the listener to hear and have their minds blown by. Producing pop music or dubstep is difficult, but the result is just cleaner, more pleasant aesthetics. Maybe some interesting synth sounds in the case of dubstep. But the actual musical content is still fairly simple, and all that effort can only really be appreciated by other producers.

Same with writing pop music and TV jingles. I'm sure it takes a lot of refining to make them as direct and catchy as possible, but the result is still just a catchy jingle.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Any form of music can be approached with the same level of seriousness or non-seriousness. It is possible to write classical-style music casually, and to write pop or electronic dance music withe extreme discipline and seriousness.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

First I can only speak from my personal experiences and many may disgree. At times I have performed all types of music from rock to classical. In response to the question "Is non-classical just as difficult as classical?" for me 90% of the time classical is much more difficult to play than non-classical. There are a few exceptions, like when I played the clarinet in a Greek band. Also playing a Broadway show is very varied. Most of the time the pit music is a bore. Two exceptions are _West Side Story_ and _Man of La Mancha_. Jazz is the one genre that consistently is as challenging to play as classical.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Dubstep has a perceived low social value because of widespread misconceptions, ignorance and bitterness.


I have heard plenty of dubstep. It is a genre that a huge number of people seem to be trying to legitimise and make out to be something far greater than it is. I perceive dubstep to be of low social (and artistic) value because... well, because it's CRAP (value judgement there!).



CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Classical music, contemporary and traditional is considered "sophisticated", "academic", "intelligent" and so on, because the ignorant consensus is that it "obviously requires a much greater mind and skillset to write music for something as complex as an orchestra". Thus, so-called "elitist" and "purist" followers of classical/orchestral music are born, and they, like every other culturally selective group in society stick together to spread the message that the music and art that they identify themselves by is vastly superior to that which the unwashed masses enjoy, such as Justin Bieber and Skrillex.


No, it's because classical music *DOES* require a much greater mind and skill set. Much of today's pop music is written to a formula to appeal to pre-pubescent girls (mostly). Classical music is about the skilled and sophisticated manipulation of musical ideas. I enjoy a huge variety of music (I am even something of a closet admirer of Lady Gaga!). But to try to pretend this is great, sophisticated music is pure childish delusion.



CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> As someone who has written music for orchestras, choirs, metal bands, trance, country, bubblegum pop, hollywood movies and tv jingles.


Haven't tried to write a four-movement symphony, though, have you?



CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I can assure you that neither musical genre is more sophisticated, intelligent or difficult to do than another.


Yes it IS!



CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I feel compelled to address the gross ignorance that is displayed increasingly frequent when people trash great pop acts of our time such as Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and so on. The collective talent, musicianship, intelligence and hard work behind these acts is unparalleled. There is a reason why these people are popular, and it's not the image or look that they carry. The music may not be to your taste, but be honest with yourself and man enough to admit that the reason you don't listen to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga is because of its perceived social stigma, your own ego and/or your views on manufactured talent packages. I myself choose to keep an open mind and never ever mix music and art with politics or as a social affiliation and identification factor. Wherever great men pave new road, greater minds will follow, and the collective great minds will eventually reach the limits of what we are intellectually capable of, only to carry this knowledge forth into new fields of discovery. The principle of evolution is as sound in the context of music as in the context of nature. Do you follow the herd or is your mind free? Think about it. Do you identify yourself through music? Do you hide behind it or do you actually choose to be free and embrace everything without prejudice? Life is so rich and full of beauty, and art is truly limitless, so why limit ourselves to the sheep mentality in our appreciation of it? Embrace without prejudice and cultivate that which resonates within you, not what resonates with others.[/I]


This insults me! I will try ANYTHING musically. I keep an open mind and judge by what I HEAR with more than thirty years' professional experience behind me. To suggest that I don't value certain types of music just because I don't think I should (and without hearing it, it seems to be intimated) insults every serious music lover. While there ARE closed-minded people who won't even listen to certain types of music, there are plenty who WILL.

I make value judgements according to what I perceive and my musical standards. There is some very fine pop music (I would suggest some of Lady Gaga's music could fall into this camp) and there is some truly appalling tosh (cue Justin Bieber. I don't tar everything with the same brush, so please (this is to the writer of the quoted article), please don't tar all of US in that way.

Yes, the writer is a fool seeking self-justification and -aggrandisement.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Would T.S. Elliot have been a good lyricist?
> Could Bernie Taupin or Hal David write a novel?


Interesting question. Thinking out loud, T.S. Eliot wrote a poem which became the lyrics to Andrew Lloyd Weber's _Cats_, and he was capable of writing lowbrow. (Like the dialogue in the pub in The Waste Land). But he could write some of the most intellectually and spiritually stimulating verses I've encountered.

I've noticed great composers can and have written popular melodies, but it doesn't always follow that pop artists can write great compositions. Some genres require more education than others.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

'LET us go then, you and I,

When the evening is spread out against the sky

Like a patient etherized upon a table...'

That's all I know from_ T. S. Eliot_, really dig it though.

As far as classical being difficult, it is. Almost everybody knows a good deal of classical, maybe not this and that name attached to it. As far as it being difficult, it simply _is_ difficult. For me atleast, it takes time and memorization most of time to realize what the music is saying and how it is saying it that makes it personable to me. I don't think everyone wishes to apply such effort, nor can I blame them; Especially if they don't have a very good ear for music. Most people have a few classics on the shelve or mp3, in forms of various cheap hit-sets and such, these _are_ popular by the way.

Probably said in too short and brief words what many've already honed in on, apologies...


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Man, most pop/rock singers or players don't even know to read scores. To compare these genres with classical music or good jazz is foolish. I would rather be elitist than blind and superficial.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Man, most pop/rock singers or players don't even know to read scores. To compare these genres with classical music or good jazz is foolish. I would rather be elitist than blind and superficial.


Man, most classically trained musicians can't play anything by ear or improvise. To compare that with rock and good jazz is foolish. I would rather know what I'm talking about than be elitist and ignorant.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Man, most classically trained musicians can't play anything by ear or improvise. To compare that with rock and good jazz is foolish. I would rather know what I'm talking about than be elitist and ignorant.


Maybe because they weren't interested. They can learn  For a pop/rock artist it will be much harder to learn how to sight-read music, if he doesn't even know key signatures for example. Composing a symphony is not the same thing like composing a pop album. A classical symphony, not simple/minimalist epic stuff composed today for orchestra by guys who think they are composing classical music.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Maybe because they weren't interested. They can learn  For a pop/rock artist it will be much harder to learn how to sight-read music, if he doesn't even know key signatures for example. Composing a symphony is not the same thing like composing a pop album. A classical symphony, not simple/minimalist epic stuff composed today for orchestra by guys who think they are composing classical music.


Such things still require skill, and craft, and artistry to be done well. I've heard pop albums (I guess we can consider this something of a long musical form, like a suite in some ways) that are way better than many "classical symphonies". I've also heard classical symphonies way better than many pop albums. As far as classical musicians being unable to just sit down and play, they really aren't much better than machines. Its like a person who can read but can't simply speak their own ideas. It doesn't really take that much time to learn how to read music, its pretty simple, you just learn the rules and what the symbols mean. Learning to play by ear and improvise is far more complicated, and require a much deeper understanding of music and how it works.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> It doesn't really take that much time to learn how to read music, its pretty simple, you just learn the rules and what the symbols mean. Learning to play by ear and improvise is far more complicated, and require a much deeper understanding of music and how it works.


I see where you're coming from, but that hasn't been my experience. Complicated music like you encounter with classical music, with rhythms and meter shifts, is very hard to read and requires a lot of practice.

Also, I know many very talented people who play by ear, and it came so easily, they never submitted to the discipline of reading notes. But that's a weakness for them. When they've wanted their music written down, they've had to come to me to write their charts. They give me a tape, and I can transcribe it onto music paper.

My experience is, I started out as a very good sight-reader and could improvise. It wasn't until I got in my church band that I had to learn to play by ear. But I transferred my reading skills to ear-playing. I was used to seeing and hearing intervals, so I could think logically about the melody I was playing, and I wasn't just playing by guess and by God. When they changed keys, it didn't throw me, because I was thinking numbers anyway. And when I was improvising, I could see the chords in my head.

So that's my experience. Personally, I think it's easier for someone who has submitted to the discipline of reading music to expand out into playing by ear than for someone who is undisciplined to go the other direction.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

@BD:

It might be easy to learn musical notation, but sight-reading with speed certainly takes some time, can't be improved over night. A good classical-trained player has at least a basic idea of how music works, and he can certainly improvise music borrowing motifs, ideas from the repertoire he is familiar with. As long as he posses good skills in playing that instrument and can sight-read score with a great speed, wouldn't be hard for him to learn how to improvise. Of course, it doesn't have to be the master in improvisation like Liszt or Beethoven, but certainly he can make much more than 90 % of pop/rock artists today. I didn't say that pop/rock is all crap, some is crap (to be honest, most), some is good. In this category some good popular music is simple, and I am fine with it, and some may be complex, but really few artists can match this category. There is good popular music but I can't say that composing a large-scaled symphonic work is like composing few pop tracks with a simple chord progression and some vocals added on it.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that follows. Complicated music like you encounter with classical music, with rhythms and meter shifts, is very hard to read and requires a lot of practice.


I think what BD means is that it's easy to learn to understand written notation, but to do what it says is difficult. For example, a person could understand how to read music and easily figure out how to transcribe the written music notation into a piano roll-style editor, but could still be incapable of using it in performance.

Another analogy: You could compare it to knowing how to read a foreign alphabet and actually knowing the language. I can read and write the Greek alphabet, but I haven't the foggiest idea what any Greek words actually mean. (Except for the basic roots and affixes which are borrowed into English.)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> I think what BD means is that it's easy to learn to understand written notation, but to do what it says is difficult.


I agree with you; if all you're going to be is an atomaton, just plug the notes into a computer and go off and do something useful.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> I think what BD means is that it's easy to learn to understand written notation, *but to do what it says is difficult. *


Her point about popular music is valuable even if I don't entirely agree with it. But saying reading music is easy and mechanical without mentioning how hard it is to actually site read an enjoyable performance, or interpret a piece entirely from notation, especially music which does not always stand on its own without a little interpretive help, is a half truth that does not solidly support her argument.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I agree on the work part, anyway.

The other elements, well if talent was mentioned that is a useless factor to gauge.

This is like saying both walk tight-wires, but I'd have to say there are different echalons, and classical mainly, towers over almost all when it comes to technical demand, speed of learning or producing, and I'll say the dirty words. Nuance; more complex and / or subtle 'intellectual' musical activity. Walk a tight wire three feet off the ground, walk one thirty feet off the ground without a net (The engineer - mixer tweaking your ensemble's live or recorded performance, for example

If you only play rock guitar, pick it up at twelve, work as hard as another musician is working toward classical, within the pop genres those musicians are meeting a technical demand which is most often less taxing and exacting, and is within a very narrow spectrum of format and range of musical / harmonic language. So you get a rock 'Horowitz' who is highly inventive in one rather narrow vein of music who is 'ready' and working at age 18 or 20. (I can hear the wounded howling now - understood, no need to address it offended).

The young classical musician has to aim toward technique required at a more intense, longer duration, regular frequency of demand to perform / deliver, live, "No Net" -- in order to do so, they have to learn to play, theoretically analyze, a huge body of historic literature as well as all the modern and contemporary, have a modicum of true virtuosity in that many styles, the technique to render Monteverdi to Berio, Carter, Tristan Murail, etc. and play or write your own music.

I think all that takes a titch more application, time, perseverance over many more years.

To be clear, I hope to Apollo anyone with ears would revel in hearing this, an astoundingly perfect delivery and a pinnacle of deep musicianship... 
James Booker -On the Sunny Side of the Street. Here, Mr. Booker is in this vein to me as profoundly impressive and 'kinda perfect' as is Horowitz's Scarlatti....






... Everything 'kinda perfect,' perfectly placed -- a true virtuosity, full sense of the word. My 'old classical training' bias also says this one is on his own, and he does not have a sound engineer mixing the balance when you play live, nor autotune via the mike next to the mouth which sings  He also, if ears are open, has a mountain of 'how to play / perform / write-arrange' information from which any type of musician, player or composer can hugely benefit.

Not that medals are being handed out anyway, so what's the big deal? I stand by my division of which takes more of everything, have no trouble with that factoid; as to what on that checklist are required, generally, all good music making demands the same stuff. Some of it demands more of the musician than others, a lot of that which demands that much more is the classical genre.

But hey, I'm just some guy, not the PR agent or spokesman for a rampantly hard-core full-bore drive commercial enterprise. Those deal with so much marketed mediocrity they have to spend much more money, time, and make a much greater noise to get their many far from good -- as well as their best -- noticed in a marketplace for a genre which is stuffed with an inordinate number of the mediocre.

It is that many times more difficult for anyone entering the classical profession to get their foot in the door unless they are far ahead of that same level of mediocrity which sells in the popular genres.

_ [Another non-issue, or a very "first world problem," Is what I would call it.] _


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik (Nov 9, 2012)

Who knows... It is pointless to discuss this, as non-classical musicians and listeners will never allow their music to be denigrated as simplistic and amateurish. Only an internal debate is possible.

I do know, however, the reason why *I *eventually "transferred" to Classical is there being far more room to explore within a single classical piece than within a pop tune (or even entire pop album). I can't really find in most pop/folk/blues music anything to discover over a prolonged listening (leaving aside the songs and their meaning, as that is a different subject). But this is just me and doesn't necessarily say anything about the quality of musicianship that goes into it.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

I wrote something on my blog that is similar to this, so i figure it'd be good to share

*as someone who frequently composes and also plays viola in bands/records string arrangements for bands/produces modern albums*



> the word "musician" is something that i'm always careful with. it used to be about how it implies a certain level of expertise, but now my ambiguity with the word is due to my distinguishing of notated music and non-notated music (to avoid the "classical" and "popular" terms).
> 
> honestly, I don't think I'd consider an indie-folk artist or a punk band as musicians. Instead, it's simply a collective of artists. Just like painting is a medium for expression, music is as well. People who are songwriters approach music from an artistic perspective, in the sense that they do what sounds good, and create an aural painting from that. There is theory to it, but it's a lot more natural (and subconscious), seeing as the progression of western music has taught us to behave that way.
> 
> ...


also, one thing about non-classical music that people seem to not get is the concept of pulling together an album. The format of the modern album is really significant, and is only another way of connecting music to painting. Each album is a combination of vivid imagery and technique, and to shrug it off simply because there's no sheet music behind it is ignorant. Many things go into an album that isn't accounted for in most composers' minds. For example, the production is a huge portion that isn't normally addressed by composers, because usually recordings aren't produced by them (while in non-classical music there are many artists either producing their own work or creating a collaborative effort).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The other elements, well if talent was mentioned that is a useless factor to gauge.


Maybe hard to gauge, but it seems to be the most important factor. We jaw on endlessly about systems, deep meaning, and all that, but the real question to me is: Is this composer musical? Does he/she have that magical something to make music work, to mean anything to us? Of course we expect a composer to refine that talent, to add structure, event, and all that. But without talent, all is lost and the composer might as well go into accountancy or some such. Some should have.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> Man, most classically trained musicians can't play anything by ear or improvise. To compare that with rock and good jazz is foolish. I would rather know what I'm talking about than be elitist and ignorant.





Manxfeeder said:


> I see where you're coming from, but that hasn't been my experience. Complicated music like you encounter with classical music, with rhythms and meter shifts, is very hard to read and requires a lot of practice.
> 
> Also, I know many very talented people who play by ear, and it came so easily, they never submitted to the discipline of reading notes. But that's a weakness for them. When they've wanted their music written down, they've had to come to me to write their charts. They give me a tape, and I can transcribe it onto music paper.
> 
> ...


I think improv is central to this whole thing. Australian composer Peter Sculthorpe did a symphonic rock song in the 1970's, and I remember reading in an article he wrote at the time that he admired the freedom with which rock musicians can put this feeling of spontaneity into their music. It was only a (say) 4-5 minute long song, but he said it was not easy to kind of get away from his disciplined classical training and embrace rock, albeit writing for a singer with orchestral backing as well as a rock band.

But the fact is, people are talking as if the distinction between classical and other types of musics is cut and dried. Well its not always like that. Eg. for ages now, quite a lot of non classical musos have had a background in classical music. Either taught an instrument from a young age & some going to university. Nina Simone was a Julliard graduate. Dave Brubeck studied under Nadia Boulanger. Burt Bacharach studied with Milhaud. One of my favourite bands (still going), The Moody Blues, where all classically trained. Guys like the late Jon Lord and Elton John have been steeped in classical music since a young age.

I could go on, its the same with young rockers today. I listen to the radio here and in interviews they sometimes mention classical composers or musicains, esp. post-1945 avant-garde which influenced them (eg. John Cage, or Stockhausen). Its well known that the latter had his lectures attended by The Beatles. Techno can be traced back to guys like Stockhausen, the pioneers of electronic music. To VArese as well, whose music was admired by the likes of the legendary sax player Charlie 'Bird' Parker.

So the stereotype that all non-classical musicians don't know how to read music, or don't know classical music, its not entirely true. Saying its all primitive and low grade is just silly, given the facts. & in relation to Burt Bacharach, singer Dionne Warwick in an interview said that singing his stuff was the hardest stuff she had ever sang. All these sudden rhythm and key changes. I think someone compared Bacharach's pieces in that way to Stravinsky. & Milhaud, his teacher, was not averse to that as well, it must have rubbed off (eg. bitonality). So there you go.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Let's not forget Glenn Gould's fixation on Petula Clark...


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Let's not forget Glenn Gould's fixation on Petula Clark...


I try not to take 'ol Glenn too seriously sometimes. Yes, he was a genius, but he was a mad genius.


----------



## stanchinsky (Nov 19, 2012)

> Classical music, contemporary and
> traditional is considered "sophisticated", "academic", "intelligent" and so on, because the ignorant consensus is that it "obviously requires a much greater mind and skillset to write music for something as complex as an orchestra".


I'm sorry but how is this even up for debate? I understand that people have different musical tastes, but this statement shows me that whoever wrote this doesn't really have a solid understanding of the classical tradition. Also,



> I feel compelled to address the gross ignorance that is displayed increasingly frequent when people trash great pop acts of our time such as Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and so on. The collective talent, musicianship, intelligence and hard work behind these acts is unparalleled


I would agree that a lot of work is put behind these acts, and that is because the record industry is expecting to make HUGE returns on whatever 'talent' that they are promoting. The pop music industry is a billion dollar industry, and is representative of our consumerist culture, hear it a couple times and then throw it away. The usage of the word 'unparalleled' while discussing the talent, musicianship, and intelligence of these pop 'musicians' is a ridiculous overstatement and is almost laughable.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stanchinsky said:


> The usage of the word 'unparalleled' while discussing the talent, musicianship, and intelligence of these pop 'musicians' is a ridiculous overstatement and is almost laughable.


Sounds like a great opportunity for someone like yourself to go out and make a few million bucks. Don't forget to send me some!


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2012)

I don't really know what is meant by 'difficult'. I like dubstep. I like classical. I dislike TS Eliot, and loathe AL Webber.

If I were alive in 1790, I know what I would have wanted to write to earn a crust. But I'm alive in 2012, and had I the skill, I'd be writing pop and making money!

Sorry, I've got no time for those who want to lay claim to being highbrow and dissing others' tastes at the same time.


----------



## stanchinsky (Nov 19, 2012)

Don't worry I'll share with everyone! Then maybe us classical musicians won't all be starving artists anymore.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> *Man, most classically trained musicians can't play anything by ear or improvise*. To compare that with rock and good jazz is foolish. I would rather know what I'm talking about than be elitist and ignorant.


Really? Are you sure _most_ classically trained musicians can't do that? I would be rather shocked if the majority of them couldn't. I believe you are probably incorrect, but if that is really the case I don't think classical musicians are being trained properly.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

I don't disagree with the point that there is a lot of worthwhile pop music, just as there is a lot of mediocre "classical" music. However, the argument cited in the OP is argumentatively crude and needlessly inflammatory.

First off, the argument treats difficulty and aesthetic quality as if the two were equivalent. That's stupid: the "difficulty" of the music is _not_ an infallible index of how "good" or "bad" it is.

It is also stupid, and insulting, to say that _all _people who prefer classical to other kinds of music _only _ do so because it makes them feel superior. There are many reasons why people listen to, or prefer, classical music.

Moreover, s/he might have chosen more interesting and persuasive examples of great pop art--s/he can only come up with Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Britney Spears!?!? Give me a break.

In short, I think a pretty fair, even uncontroversial point has been wrapped up in the bacon of Troll.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Sid James said:


> So the stereotype that all non-classical musicians don't know how to read music, or don't know classical music, its not entirely true. Saying its all primitive and low grade is just silly, given the facts. & in relation to Burt Bacharach, singer Dionne Warwick in an interview said that singing his stuff was the hardest stuff she had ever sang. All these sudden rhythm and key changes. I think someone compared Bacharach's pieces in that way to Stravinsky. & Milhaud, his teacher, was not averse to that as well, it must have rubbed off (eg. bitonality). So there you go.


It was about mainstream pop, dubstep and crap like these. I agree with what you say, but those artists are not into "mainstream". Mainstream music like dubstep, house, chief pop, it's all about " boom-boom." I don't say that there aren't great rock bands, jazz, blues, etc. ( I like some prog rock, there are still good bands, but rather obscure). But dubstep and other kinds of "music" with no substance can't be said to be as hard to play as classical music. They aren't even played ! It's all electronic, sampled, sequenced, even vocals are filtered, auto-tuned, etc. Most pop stars have no idea of what music is, I don't talk non-sense here. It's all true. And my critiques were about these kinds of "artists" because these are what I consider "mainstream".


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

People seem to be jumbling up instrumental technique, compositional complexity, mass appeal, reading music and improvising.
Different skills are need for different demands.

There are many very fine musicians who cannot read read music because they are working in a field where reading music is not required. 
There are many very successful producers of electronic dance music that can't even play an instrument but they know how to manipulate sounds and structure tracks to fill a dance-floor.

If the great classical performers wanted to be great improvisors they would do what great improvisors do, spend many hours of each day improvising.

Great music of any genre is not _difficult_ if you get good at it.:lol:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> There is a reason why these people are popular, and it's not the image or look that they carry. The music may not be to your taste, *but be honest with yourself and man enough to admit that the reason you don't listen to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga is because of its perceived social stigma, your own ego and/or your views on manufactured talent packages.* I myself choose to keep an open mind and never ever mix music and art with politics or as a social affiliation and identification factor. Wherever great men pave new road, greater minds will follow, and the collective great minds will eventually reach the limits of what we are intellectually capable of, only to carry this knowledge forth into new fields of discovery. The principle of evolution is as sound in the context of music as in the context of nature. Do you follow the herd or is your mind free? Think about it. Do you identify yourself through music? Do you hide behind it or do you actually choose to be free and embrace everything without prejudice? Life is so rich and full of beauty, and art is truly limitless, so why limit ourselves to the sheep mentality in our appreciation of it? Embrace without prejudice and cultivate that which resonates within you, not what resonates with others.[/I]


Interesting idea. Only one problem with that statement I made bold above.

That's not why I don't like Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. I respect them for their talent, but is talent just enough to like someone? By no means...

That's something I've talked to my parents about. They show me some 70s disco music and say, "Look! It's very complex isn't it? Don't you like it?" And I will accede it's complex, but that's not enough for me to like it. It's not about the "who" or the "how," it's about the *"what."* And if I don't like the "what" then there's no point to me forcing myself to like it otherwise.

Now to what I think about "_I_ myself choose to keep an open mind" I laugh bitterly. Why? What's the point of open-mindedness? Only to BE in the herd! It's the herd of open-mindedness.  As a non-conformist, to be in this supposedly open-minded state _which is actually objectified to mean *loving *every genre of music apparently_ would not be myself, but to become something I'm not for the sake of fitting in. *I EMBRACE my uniqueness of loving almost exclusively classical, and so I am happy.* If anything, I keep an open mind to obscure classical, and that's what I want to spend my life studying. Someone once told me that I should aim to be the person that everyone will say of: "Oh you know her? She just loves everything!" But I don't really want to be known for that. What's the point of it? Not my happiness anyway, just other people's acceptance/praise.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

"Open-mindedness" has become an ideology on itself. You have to agree with any ******** only to prove that you are "open-minded". I guess that's why everything is so blended today, and it's almost impossible to find real value among plenty of crap.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> "Open-mindedness" has become an ideology on itself. You have to agree with any ******** only to prove that you are "open-minded". I guess that's why everything is so blended today, and it's almost impossible to find real value among plenty of crap.


How about not being quite so liberal with your dismissal of stuff you don't care for as 'crap'. That doesn't require open-mindedness, just a degree of consideration for another's point of view/tastes/opinions...dubstep isn't 'crap'.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

What is crap, then ? Something has to be mediocre after all...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I know they are mainly talking about pop and dubstep, but I just have to say that there is plenty of music in non-classical genres that is complicated and have some sophistication and genuine musicality in them. You just have to search harder for the good stuff with other genres because the market is saturated with crap.

Also, I think in some ways, some world/traditional music can actually be harder to play than classical music. Has anyone seen an Indian tabla performance??


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> Has anyone seen an Indian tabla performance??


Well, that *is* classical music, so maybe not a fair comparison. 

(Added) BTW many thanks for the post. Alla Rakha is quite incredible, and the introductory explanations added much to my knowledge of the tabla.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> What is crap, then ? Something has to be mediocre after all...


Alot of music from the Classical period :3


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> What is crap, then ? Something has to be mediocre after all...


Well, as you've previously admitted, you need to work on your English. Check the meaning of mediocre. You'll find it's not an appropriate synonym for crap.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The OP reminds me of a very public complaint on the part of one A.L. Weber, prior his 'Lord' days.... That complaint, I believe in an interview or a letter to the press, was that the classical music critics and community did not take Lord Weber's music seriously.

The retort, from a professional critic in the press was, that when AL Weber writes a piece of serious classical music, the critics would give it serious attention....

The OP here is not an argument for, but a publicist's whinging statement, a tactic, to get more attention for that publicists clients.

What a shock and big whup.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

removed whole post


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The condensed version of my longer response, #24 in this thread:

Sigh.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Nina Simone


It's strange that you brought up Nina Simone. Her words exactly:

"She injected as much of her classical background into her music as possible to give it more depth and quality, as she felt that pop music was inferior to classical.[5]"

Most people, I think, would not care about the age of the people that are listening to their music, as long as they are listening to it with open-minded ears. I know I wouldn't care if a 60 year old or a 14 year old is listening to any of my pieces, as long as they're being attentive and receptive of a piece. In fact, if I had to pick I would like my audience to be older rather than younger; I have yet to meet anyone from my class who know much of Schubert beyond Ave Maria, but I have met many 60 year olds who have. At least for me, the older people are much more relatable musically than the younger ones. But that's only if I had to pick the age of my audience. Frankly, I wouldn't be able to nor would I care the age of my audience. It's whoever listens to good music, whether they be 60 or 15. I wouldn't go to dubstep for example just because people my age are listening to it. I think that is very superficial.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

wrong window, sorry.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Yes, and guess what, musicians who started in classical have voted with their feet. The real action, or a large part of it, is not in classical but other areas.
> 
> As I said, many where classically trained and went in other directions (or got to the point that they could have went on to do classical, some even getting degrees in music, but going into jazz, rock, pop, etc.).
> 
> ...


"... musicians who started in classical have voted with their feet. The real action, or a large part of it, is not in classical but other areas.
As I said, many where classically trained and went in other directions (or got to the point that they could have went on to do classical, some even getting degrees in music, but going into jazz, rock, pop, etc.)."
I gave examples in my last post here. Bacharach, Nina Simone, Brubeck, Elton John, Jon Lord. Sarah Vaughan had the vocal range of an opera singer. Her tutor when she was 18 or so asked her what she wanted to focus on. It was jazz. That was ages ago, mid 20th century."

_All this shows is those musicians knew where to get the most complete and solid training, not that their original ambition was to go into classical and they then thought classical already a losing plunge down the chasm pursuit. I think you're seeing it as you care to see it, and not as it really is. I've never read of Bacharach's youthful ambition to become a serious symphonist, know Simone studied classical but did not have a 'shattered' disappointment she could not be a classical musician nor did she have some agonized and wrenching decision to become, uh, Nina Simone.
*Every time there is a chair position open for a symphony or chamber symphony anywhere, major or 'minor' leagues, there are anywhere from four to six hundred applicants, all young musicians 'voting with their feet,' willing and wanting to sign up to play, according to you, 'old music for old people.'*
But where, next to this, is the formidable and lengthy list of successful 'classical' musicians who first got their training via studying pop music, performance or songwriting? Oh. I see._

"... classical musicologists have studied and written about Lloyd Webber's musicals. & the best of them do stand up to academic scrutiny and study, same as 'highbrow' opera. Or for that matter, Lenny's 'West Side Story.'"
_Alrighty, then: this Composer has allegedly, but with many 'alleged confirmations,' for many years now, hired other composers to write 'ALW' style music to his lyrics, then signs it as his own. The fact the Puccini heirs sued ALW for plagiarism and won that lawsuit speaks volumes; keeping this in mind, and the fact ALW is hugely wealthy, I would not be surprised if perhaps those musicologists were also hired... like those 'independent' paid for studies touted about to support the merits of a commercial product. Recall too, the very true story which showed how strongly ALW yearned for earnest critical acclaim from the classical community. So, he got what he badly wanted, by some means or t'other. Too, perhaps those analyses were unwitting critiques on well-made ersatz Puccini not penned by ALW? 
Perhaps whatever ALW's products are they are well-written musicals which do not hold a candle to the quality or level of interest of contemporary classical works written by others in the same time? And what is the problem, seriously, with categorizing 'West Side Story' as a musical, when that is what it is?_

"Face it, a young musician with talent today, do they want to play to a hall of 50 or 60 year old (their grandparent's generation) or a hall full of young people like themselves? Does playing to a hall mainly full of seniors something that gets your creative juices flowing?"
_Apart from this being oddly ageist, I wonder, since you are an avowed layman who 'likes it all' and who has said 'it is all the same to me,' leading many to doubt your ability to discern wheat from chaff, what makes you confident enough to speak for one or more generations of highly trained musicians? Frankly, I find that move rather appalling. You're certainly not speaking for me, or voicing anything a number of my younger colleagues in classical say._

"A kind of blandness and homogeneity has come to rule in all musical genres, it seems, not only in classical."
_*And the egalitarian approach, a formula for the maximum entropy which is 'mediocrity' is somehow an intelligent proposal to improve this situation*?

*What, please, is with the egalitarian thingy? All things are not equal. Fact. Wishing will not make it otherwise.*_


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

> I feel compelled to address the gross ignorance that is displayed increasingly frequent when people trash great pop acts of our time such as Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and so on. The collective talent, musicianship, intelligence and hard work behind these acts is unparalleled. There is a reason why these people are popular, and it's not the image or look that they carry. The music may not be to your taste, but be honest with yourself and man enough to admit that the reason you don't listen to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga is because of its perceived social stigma, your own ego and/or your views on manufactured talent packages. I myself choose to keep an open mind and never ever mix music and art with politics or as a social affiliation and identification factor.


For me the whole argument is lost in the ignorance that the writer shows in firstly stating that the 'collective talent' is 'unparalleled'; and secondly in the assumption that the reason people don't listen to Justin Bieber etc is because of 'perceived social stigma', ego and 'views on manufactured talent packages'. Anyone who assumes that they know the reason why I don't listen to Britney Spears is living in a bubble of their own self-importance, and I have no time for that. 
In one sentence the writer asserts that their popularity is NOT to do with the image or look they carry, then in the next he describes them as 'manufactured talent packages', which of course is all about the image and look that they carry. It makes no sense.

I would suggest that one of the key factors in deciding whether one type of music is more 'difficult' than another is through the medium of karaoke. I am prepared to suggest that there will be many karaoke machines across the world that have 'Baby, Baby, Baby' (Justin Bieber) or 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' (Britney Spears) included in their song-lists, but very few - if any - that have 'The Immolation Scene from Gotterdammerung' (Wagner) or 'Die zweit blauen Augen' (Mahler) on them. Personally I'd be happy to give all four a bash! It may very well be that the latter are omitted because very few people will ever choose them, but I'd suggest that this has as much to do with them being flipping difficult as anything else.
'Popular' music has to exist within limited musical parameters in order for it to be popular. Thus to make it catchy and therefore to sell, it needs to be instantly memorable - it needs to have a regular rhythm so that it has a 'beat', a balanced melody which can however be as off-beat as you like, provided the main beat is always present; and it has to - in the main - be conchordant. The simpler it is, the wider appeal it can have - a large percentage of the intended audience won't be intrinsically musical. More complex non-classical music can deviate from these key factors, for example some lengthy works by prog-rock bands such as Yes or Genesis are extraordinarily varied and 'difficult' in terms of complex, frequently changing rhythm sequences, long melodic strands that might not identically repeat and big key changes and chord structures.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)




----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I retract the post PetrB quoted from. I should not have spoken. Some of his objections are correct. I was in a rush and too reactive. From now on I will just post on the non controversial threads of this forum. If petrb wants to remove his post in response entirely and that post I removed (his quotes of it) I would appreciate it. No pressure, its up to him.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

to make classical i have to study and learn.

to make pop music i hire a team of composers.

so i would say classical music is harder to create. impossible for some people to even comprehend why it exists let alone create it.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well, as you've previously admitted, you need to work on your English. Check the meaning of mediocre. You'll find it's not an appropriate synonym for crap.


Let's say that I was trying to be nice last time.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2012)

Did I miss where someone explained what is meant by 'difficult'? I'm still not clear.

In the meantime, to attempt to judge one variety of music by the standards of another, particularly when there is 300 years between varieties, is fruitless. It might momentarily amuse if we speculate what Beethoven might have written for a radio audience of the 1930s or 2000s, and whether Madonna could have written something that might have entertained the Esterhazy family, but the point is that trying to compare 'classical' with 'pop' is just silly. Setting aside the interminable debate about what counts as classical, classical and pop have different traditions, purposes, media of propagation, disciplines, audiences...

The fact that we can point to examples where traditions have fused, crossed over or been otherwise diluted genetically does not mean that distinct genres with their distinct needs no longer exist. The fact that some repeatedly point to only two pop acts (BiebaGaga) and deride a whole genre on that basis does not mean that there is no value to all that might be counted as 'pop'.

Anyone with a remotely musical ear can listen to a symphony by Mozart and spot the difference in complexity from The Beatles' _She Loves You. _Where does that get anyone? What is the value in such a comparison?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

LordBlackudder said:


> to make classical i have to study and learn.
> 
> to make pop music i hire a team of composers.


A bit slanted. In the good ol' days, nobility would also hire composers to "make classical." Some of their names we know well. In a sense it's still done anytime a new work is commissioned.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> ...The fact that some repeatedly point to only two pop acts (BiebaGaga) and deride a whole genre on that basis does not mean that there is no value to all that might be counted as 'pop'.


Yes, and I'd add people do the same with classical. Eg. the opinion that a composer is nothing more than one work. Or stereotyping a whole era or style. Or stuff like that. I mean very reductionist thinking.



> ...
> Anyone with a remotely musical ear can listen to a symphony by Mozart and spot the difference in complexity from The Beatles' _She Loves You. _Where does that get anyone? What is the value in such a comparison?


Similar to above. Music is for different purposes. For its purposes, a Mozart symphony does the job. For its different purposes, a song of The Beatles does the job as well. It works in classical too. Mozart, if asked for light dinner party music, wrote things like his divertimentos for strings (KV.136 is a favourite of mine, delightful stuff). For that purpose he would not write, nor need to write, something of the profundity and depth of his late works (eg. Don Giovanni, or the last two or three symphonies). I think this can be applied to any type of music, I don't think its a big deal to recognise this simple fact.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Well, personally I have very little idea about what labels are surrounded with what music until I am informed about it, usually some time after everyone else has. I have no idea what dubstep is or associated with beyond this thread. However, I disliked Harpsichordconcerto's link so I guess it isn't for me.

Of course it takes skill to make pop music. Does it take as much skill as classical? Did [pick a random pop song, probably about 5 minutes long] take as much skill as, say, any one of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier? Comparable length, but that would be a no. The skill in the former has a lot more to do with commercialisation etc. whereas the latter would be a contrapuntal masterpiece. Of course there are very few musicians of the talent of JS Bach. He was a master of improvisation incidentally.

The skill of jazz musicians astounds me, even though the music doesn't do much for me. Louis Armstrong is another musician of incredible talent, rivalled by only a few in whatever genre IMO.

Just because someone has talent doesn't mean that they achieved it to the full. Imagine Beethoven straining against himself with hundreds of sketches to appreciate what pushing oneself to the limits of one's abilities and beyond means.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ramako said:


> ...
> Of course it takes skill to make pop music. Does it take as much skill as classical? Did [pick a random pop song, probably about 5 minutes long] take as much skill as, say, any one of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier? Comparable length, but that would be a no. The skill in the former has a lot more to do with commercialisation etc. whereas the latter would be a contrapuntal masterpiece. Of course there are very few musicians of the talent of JS Bach. He was a master of improvisation incidentally...


I'm guilty of liking Gounod's schmaltzy arrangment of one of Bach's WTC pieces into the_ Ave Maria _- still sung in churches today!






But I like the original too. I see nothing wrong with such 'lowbrow' stuff as this. Composers had to make money, and these raked in more cash than their serious and 'highbrow' works. Much more. They where the equivalent of pop songs today, or near to. Sheet music was sold of these types of things back then, and that meant a lot for the income of guys like Gounod. Guys like Saint-Saens, Elgar, not to speak of Sarasate, did a lot of this type of music, some encores, salon music and some for other purposes (like this, for church). So maybe something from now, or close to now (eg. Michael Jackson) can achieve the same type of 'immortality?' Only time will tell.



> ...The skill of jazz musicians astounds me, even though the music doesn't do much for me. Louis Armstrong is another musician of incredible talent, rivalled by only a few in whatever genre IMO.
> 
> ...


Yes, Satchmo was great, as popular as they get, and such a big innovator in jazz. Miles Davis payed tribute to him and Americans wept in the streets when his death was announced. That doesn't happen often (New Yorkers apparently reacted the same way when Lenny died).


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

For me--when as a much younger man--I became exposed to and aware of "concept" albums such as_* Sgt. Pepper*_ and _*Tarkus*_, etc., etc., I believed--and still believe--that both content wise and from a technical/aesthetic viewpoint, they are on a par with any other genre of music ever created.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

samurai said:


> For me--when as a much younger man--I became exposed to and aware of "concept" albums such as_* Sgt. Pepper*_ and _*Tarkus*_, etc., etc., I believed--and still believe--that both content wise and from a technical/aesthetic viewpoint, they are on a par with any other genre of music ever created.


Ha. For the flack that classical music sometime cops as being just a musical museum, or some kind of mausoleum, the fact remains that it is recreated, live, in concert halls on a constant basis. Pop or rock 'concept' albums are entirely artificial creations of the recording studio, never performed live even by their 'composers', never mind by anyone else. The only way a Beethoven symphony could be _more_ of a living thing is if Beethoven himself were still alive. Sgt Pepper, on the other hand, is about as alive as preserved butterfly in the Natural History Museum.
GG


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2012)

GraemeG said:


> Ha. For the flack that classical music sometime cops as being just a musical museum, or some kind of mausoleum, the fact remains that it is recreated, live, in concert halls on a constant basis. Pop or rock 'concept' albums are entirely artificial creations of the recording studio, never performed live even by their 'composers', never mind by anyone else. The only way a Beethoven symphony could be _more_ of a living thing is if Beethoven himself were still alive. Sgt Pepper, on the other hand, is about as alive as preserved butterfly in the Natural History Museum.
> GG


Never? A little hyperbolic, don't you think? Certainly Genesis performed _The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway_ live. The Who played _Tommy _live, though not in the exact recorded form. As for the idea that studio music is 'artificial', it's true that the recording and engineering process can produce an artefact that can't easily be reproduced in the concert hall. But you seem to imply that 'artificial' is 'bad'.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

^There was this artificial tune from the early ninties, I heard it with nostaliga in very early 2001 while walking past the Enron building in Houston. Later on, I was like, how ironic. 'Ya'll ready for this', or something, I wouldn't necessarily mind being associated with the money it generated, 'the little ditty' tune of course, not Enron.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

I don't think I should even respond to the first part of the article. The writer is overgeneralizing. I love a lot of classical music, but I personally don't mind dubstep at all, I even find some of it enjoyable! It's absolutely fine if you can't stand it, but for me, if a classical piece finishes playing on some radio station, and a dubstep piece comes on next, I'm not going to be scrambling to turn it off screaming "BAH, BLASTED PEASANT MUSIC, UNWORTHY OF MY EARS!" while twiddling my curly mustache and adjusting my monocle. The article is a little insulting, honestly...

By the same logic, is it absolutely terrible that I love Mozart but can't stand Ligeti?



> As someone who has written music for orchestras, choirs, metal bands, trance, country, bubblegum pop, hollywood movies and tv jingles I can assure you that neither musical genre is more sophisticated, intelligent or difficult to do than another.


As a composer (admittedly, a relatively inexperienced one though), I've written in quite a variety of genres too. A fully blown classical work can take months to write. Something along the lines of a film score or a jazz piece won't take as long in my experience, but can be of a relatively similar complexity, but isn't NEARLY as painful to write.

I've written pop songs in five minutes that people have said are "great". Two sets of chord progressions, move between them. Add a repeating drum loop. If you're feeling brave, maybe add an intro, a bridge and an ending. You get tempted to start adding more layers of complexity at this point, but you don't want to scare the delicate listener off! Even writing popular music that would appeal to an audience of the late 19th century takes more effort than writing popular music for today.

I'm not saying that pop musicians don't work hard at what they do, but similar in complexity to classical music? In some cases, you can reach great heights, but in most cases, no, I don't think so. But that's not what most pop music sets out to do!

Now, I enjoy pop music, especially the music that was written between the 60s and 80s. It's fun to dance and sing along to, especially with certain female friends, but it's not classical music. It serves its own purpose, so don't try to pretend its serving the same purpose that classical music does.



> I feel compelled to address the gross ignorance that is displayed increasingly frequent when people trash great pop acts of our time such as Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and so on.


There are a lot of people that are like this and they frankly need to grow up a little. It's fine not to like something, so just ignore it, it's not harming you in any way. The music of successful pop acts like Spears, Gaga, Bieber and Perry are objectively good because they are successful in serving the purpose that they sought out to serve in the first place. When they were writing their most popular music, I guarantee you that they weren't looking to move and challenge people in the same way that Beethoven would have wanted to do with one of his symphonies, so stop treating them like they were and that they failed miserably in their goals.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

If we take Vivaldi as an example, here was a composer who wrote to a formula. His formulaic approach, while producing a great many toe-tapping aural delights, resulted in tunes (concertos) characterised by a certain "sameness". You know what I mean. Was his baroque (generically termed classical) music more intrinsically difficult, musically speaking, than Charlie Parker's Bebop, or Miles Davis' modal flirtations? I think not. Not for a second.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I, personally, know both how to read and play from the soul and without formal training. I would much rather be a true musician who can play from inside and knows the instrument inside out and can play anything with anyone at anytime than some trained monkey who is technically superb but is lost without a piece of paper in front of them. I play at an extremely high level and I'm willing to put my chops up against anyone with a degree. You don't need training or education to show you music. True music is born from within and some simply have and some don't; trained or not. It has been my personal experience that the trained musicians who most complain about the weaknesses of those with natural talent are merely suffering from a form Salieritis; a much too common disease, especially among classical snobs.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

kv466 said:


> *I, personally, know both how to read and play from the soul and without formal training. I would much rather be a true musician who can play from inside and knows the instrument inside out and can play anything with anyone at anytime than some trained monkey who is technically superb but is lost without a piece of paper in front of them. I play at an extremely high level and I'm willing to put my chops up against anyone with a degree. You don't need training or education to show you music. True music is born from within and some simply have and some don't; trained or not*. It has been my personal experience that the trained musicians who most complain about the weaknesses of those with natural talent are merely suffering from a form Salieritis; a much too common disease, especially among classical snobs.


Now, don't take this the wrong way, you are among my favorite of TC members and I agree with most of what you say, but I think the part in bold is every bit as much of an elitist attitude as someone who thinks only a trained classical musician is legitimate. Its strikes me as the same kind of snobbism in reverse.


----------



## Nivmizzet (Nov 27, 2012)

No, it is in my opinion, very easy. also find it disgusting and pointless

I may as well copy and paste something I wrote somewhere else although some of it might be stupid since it was written on a non musical forum:

Edit: apparently, spoiler boxes don't work in this forum, so if you don't like long posts, then sorry.

Now, First off, I am strictly classical. And even so, only certain selections of it are the best. Opera is not that good IMO, and jazz is terrible. Medieval music is what started music in the first place so I have much respect for that type of music. Classical music I like best, baroque is getting there but not the best, renaissance is what made music popular, romantic is where things are still good to some extent, and contemporary is where things start to fall apart.

Now, most people listen to music and don't know who even created it in the first place and when, and many people are misinformed that classical music was the first type, and made in 1600, etc.

I am first off going to tell you that that is not what classical music is all about, but that is covered later. 
The actual creator of music is someone named Yared somewhere between the year 505-571 AD. Music back then was not used for entertainment but rather for religion, and you wouldn't even recognize his music as music. It was either a bunch of claps in rhythm or a sequence of words. Hardly any changes in pitch or sound are recognizable.

During the 1000 years until 1400, music wasn't very common and was used for religion only. In fact, no one started making music again until the 8th century when 2 other composers picked it up and started. By I think 800, music could be recognized as music and evolved quite plenty but it wasn't very complex. Medieval composers were very uncommon and the only 2 I can name at the top of my head are Yared and Hildegard von bingen.

It isn't until about the year 1400 that music is now actually used for entertainment. By then, many people created new techniques and styles of composing, with the idea of having music WITHOUT words, although that type of music still was uncommon. One particular technique introduced are counter melodies in which there is another background music playing along with the main music.

Then through the 1600-1750 years, it's the baroque period, where bach's death marks the end of the baroque period (which is coincidentally 1750). Music has expanded quite at this point and this is the point where people recognize music at this age and call it classical music, but that is where they are very wrong.

Classical music is technically music between 1735-1810. I don't know who came up with the idea of calling any old music classical music but that's what happened, and that is technically wrong. This is where many composers people can name appear such as beethoven, mozart, and other stuff, bla bla bla.

Romantic is 1800-1900 and contemporary is 1900-. And after 1900 is where it starts to get very screwed up with jazz and stuff.

But then you read this and think: what does all this have to do with why you hate modern music?

I ask: what does the beginning say about medieval music? 
What is the purpose of modern music? 
It's for entertainment, yes, but how do you mean to obtain it?

And that is again covered later but this is how I listen to music:
You listen to it once, and then the 2nd time, you find a story into it or analyze it. Music with titles like moonlight sonata or fur elise have a story behind it and you listen to it as though they are reading you a book, and if it's something like sonata no. 8, then you listen to it as though you are analyzing a book, where they have twist endings or whatever. You find all sorts of plots and changes in it.

Does modern music have any of that? 
No. 
Well, technically, yes, but they ruin it. 
Why so?
They just outright tell you the whole story. 
So take gangnam style and it outright tells you about a girl and crap. You want to find it yourself, and the words ruin it. 
Now, take out the words, and listen to the actual beat, and what do you get?
........................
NOTHING!!! You just get some rubbish where they keep beating!!!

And that is why I dislike modern music.
I dislike jazz because it isn't as complex and doesn't sound as pleasant, way too many improvs.

Now, I am going to take marcia alla turca (turkish march) as an example, go listen to it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRhHfDfclVY

Now, you listen as it sound quiet at the beginning, gets louder, then it reaches it's peak, then gets quiet, then the music stops after the music is already quiet. This represents how marches come from one side, then it reaches you, then walks off as the music disappears.

Do you get any of that in modern music? Do you?

I would like to see someone try to disprove me. If you have any more complaints, then try.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

tdc said:


> Now, don't take this the wrong way, you are among my favorite of TC members and I agree with most of what you say, but I think the part in bold is every bit as much of an elitist attitude as someone who thinks only a trained classical musician is legitimate. Its strikes me as the same kind of snobbism in reverse.


Yeah, but I think the 'trained monkey' aspect as a crtique of classical is valid. Look at how the art of improv disappeared from classical (after about Beethoven, but definitely by the 20th century it was dead in the water). In recent decades, we've got people reviving it (as part of the 'period instruments' & HIP movement) and of course in contemporary classical you got it coming back but in a modern context (eg. Cage) and also with the mixture between classical and other forms (eg. with jazz or rock). & what of rock and other non classical musos who do get a degree, or at least grow up steeped in classical, but then decide that classical is not for them? They bring all those skills to rock, etc.

Then there's that obsession with perfection in classical thats reaching absurd levels. These days, if you buy a live recording, chances are that a lot of it, or most of it, is not really what most people think of as live. Yeah, firstly its done live, maybe over a few different performances (cobbled together, one movement from this performance of the same work, another movement from another, etc) then 'mistakes' retouched in the studio after. Some of the greats of the past did not like anything else but live performance (Furtwangler I think was one, and the violinist Grumiaux left the inevitable small errors in a live - or even studio - performance intact, saying to change it would not be natural). In recent decades, some like Nigel Kennedy have gone back to making real live performances, with no post production touch ups.

This is all not slap bang on topic for this thread, but I think that kv466 had a strong point to make.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Like I said before, the two types of music have different viewpoints and ways to create it. While I do think that the actual composition of classical music is traditionally more meticulous and about expressing a set of emotions over a prolonged period of time, a lot of pop music is about the post-production of the music. For example, I wouldn't call pop "musicians" musicians. They approach music from an artistic level in the same way that a painter paints an image. I usually use the term musician when describing composers, because more often than not they approach music from a strictly musical level. There are many composers who couldn't write an album and there are many modern musicians who can barely even read music.

Today many songwriters learn how to produce music simultaneously to their music because (unlike classical musicians) they don't have to make their scores look good. Instead, they have to make their take--the only recording--sound exactly like it has to, and you'll find that most non-classical modern musicians have experience with audio engineering due to what they have to do to sound good (unless you're dealing with twee or punk music, which is a different case).

An example of a modern masterpiece on par with the meticulousness of a classical work is The Magnetic Fields' album 69 Love Songs. The content is self-explanatory, but it's so carefully done that the structure is flawless. Classical music is more drawn out, but pop music is usually thought of in 3-5 minute outbursts of songs, which is why it's so amazing that Stephin Merritt was able to create a HUGE (2 1/2+ hours) work that involved him thinking of his emotions, arranging styles, and songwriting in 2-5 minute segments. Each song is as good as the next, the production is fantastic, and it all works well together, exploring every facet of love (and he certainly had a lot to say, being an angst-ridden gay adult in NYC in the 90s).


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Is non-classical just as difficult as classical?


Simple answer: No.

Most non-classical genres have only one form: Songs.

Most non-classical genres are always easily accessible.

Some non-classical stuff is just as difficult as classical, but you can't say that in general.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2012)

Nivmizzet said:


> Medieval music is what started music in the first place [...]


That's quite a claim...and not true.



Nivmizzet said:


> I would like to see someone try to disprove me. If you have any more complaints, then try.


I'm not sure what in your post needs to be 'disproved'. Disagreed with, easy.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Nivmizzet said:


> So take gangnam style and it outright tells you about a girl and crap. You want to find it yourself, and the words ruin it.
> Now, take out the words, and listen to the actual beat, and what do you get?


You either know Korean, or you just picked the weirdest example possible in trying to convey a song ruining the meaning for you with its words...

I don't even like Gangnam style, but that isn't even what the song is about.

A couple of other things:

Yared didn't invent music
There are a ton of medieval composers
Evidence has been found dating music back possibly to 43,000 years ago.

You seem a bit confused...


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Nivmizzet should try listening to Godspeed You! Black Emperor if he thinks conceptual crescendos and diminuendos are the pinnacle of music.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

tdc said:


> Now, don't take this the wrong way, you are among my favorite of TC members and I agree with most of what you say, but I think the part in bold is every bit as much of an elitist attitude as someone who thinks only a trained classical musician is legitimate. Its strikes me as the same kind of snobbism in reverse.


I totally see your point, Tim; and right back atcha as you are one of _my_ faves here!

I was upset at some of the stupid remarks I had read in the thread and really direct that at those trained musicians who 'look down' upon those who aren't, that's all. Some of my best friends are classically trained musicians but they are smart enough to recognize that there are many who didn't take a single lesson who understand music better than they do and who can play music better than they do.

To me, I don't really care what you learned or who taught you what or what masterclass you took. It is all about what one can do with their instrument and what they can make you feel!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Nivmizzet said:


> I dislike jazz because it isn't as complex and doesn't sound as pleasant, way too many improvs.


I see a little contradiction here, maybe what you find not so pleasant it is so because it is too complex. Maybe the form is more simple (because of the limits due to the improvisation) but if you take the music of masters like monk, nichols, hill, tristano, shorter and many others you have music that is certainly much more harmonically and rhythmically advanced then a lot of classical music, especially considering the music before the twentieth century (on the other hand you have also jazz music that is perfectly pleasant to the ear). You have free jazz, bitonality, free atonality... do you think that Andrew Hill's music is more simple than Haydn?


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Nivmizzet said:


> The actual creator of music is someone named Yared somewhere between the year 505-571 AD. Music back then was not used for entertainment but rather for religion, and you wouldn't even recognize his music as music. It was either a bunch of claps in rhythm or a sequence of words. Hardly any changes in pitch or sound are recognizable.
> 
> During the 1000 years until 1400, music wasn't very common and was used for religion only. In fact, no one started making music again until the 8th century when 2 other composers picked it up and started. By I think 800, music could be recognized as music and evolved quite plenty but it wasn't very complex.


Even the briefest flick through the Psalms will tell you this is utter crap. What was David's lyre, pray tell?
GG


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There are numerous mentions of music in Greek and Roman times, and pictures of instruments being played on vases and in paintings and mosaics (Pompeii etc.). One writer in Roman times even mentions an organ in Rome, bellows driven by water power, that could be heard over quite a long distance. Maybe the electric guitar could be modified this way to run on purely renewable eneregy... 

In our own era, there seems to have been plenty of secular music prior to 1400, though much has been lost. Example: Guiot de Dijon: Chanterai por mon coraige (1215-1225).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

By the way this flute was made 35000 years ago.








http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-5113027.html


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BTW both Confucius and Aristotle took much notice of music between about 500 and 300 BCE, and both were concerned about its effects on public morals. Confucius, or course, was also concerned about its proper use in ceremonies.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

SottoVoce said:


> Most people, I think, would not care about the age of the people that are listening to their music, as long as they are listening to it with open-minded ears. I know I wouldn't care if a 60 year old or a 14 year old is listening to any of my pieces, as long as they're being attentive and receptive of a piece.
> 
> In fact, if I had to pick I would like my audience to be older rather than younger.


Two contradictory statements....which is it? Or do you mean: "I'd be happy with anyone listening to my music, but the older the better" ?


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

GraemeG said:


> Ha. For the flack that classical music sometime cops as being just a musical museum, or some kind of mausoleum, the fact remains that it is recreated, live, in concert halls on a constant basis. *Pop or rock 'concept' albums are entirely artificial creations of the recording studio, never performed live even by their 'composers', never mind by anyone else. *The only way a Beethoven symphony could be _more_ of a living thing is if Beethoven himself were still alive. Sgt Pepper, on the other hand, is about as alive as preserved butterfly in the Natural History Museum.
> GG


This statement is without merit. Queensryche is a progressive metal band that had a masterpiece concept album entitled Operation Mindcrime, as well as a follow-up sequal concept album. They have in the past, and continue, to perform these conceptual creations live either seperately or combined.

There exist many tribute bands whose sole or primary purpose is to recreate, and keep living, the music of other rock or pop bands. There are Beatles tribute bands, Pink Floyd tribute bands. etc. Like or dislike them, I don't care, but they exist to continually keep alive the music of those aforementioned bands.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Yeah, Sonata, and to your reposte, I'd add many subsequent bands/performers 'cover versions' of earlier songs. I'm sure GraemeG has heard of that?! I mean I've even heard a rock band of today, or of recent times, do things like Kurt Weill! So covers rejuvinate and update old songs as new songs.

Other thing is that classical composers tend to admire non classical composers/musicians of high level and obvious merit. One of my favourite singers, who composed many songs (and collaborated in writing many that she didn't take credit for), Edith Piaf is one such musician. When she died, one of the French classical composers of the time (I think it was Poulenc, but I'm not totally sure, but its someone like that) paid tribute to her. But Poulenc did in fact write a piece dedicated to 'the little sparrow,' Piaf. So, Poulenc paying tribute to Piaf, a musician with little formal training. Poulenc was so NOT highbrow!

French chanson, the type that Piaf composed and sang, is like a hybrid between 'low art' of the cafes-cabarets and also has aspects of classical, eg. chamber music, poetry, art-song. Since Piaf's time, this kind of cross fertilisation is fairly common. Maybe very common. The way people are talking is that non-classical has nothing to offer, or is somehow automatically inferior to classical. Well I for one beg to differ, even though I have grown up with classical. But I just don't like highbrow attitude, it can filter out so many good and even great things, thats the basic fact.


----------



## etkearne (Sep 28, 2012)

I think the article writer didn't actually mean "difficult" in the way most people espouse the term. I believe he or she simply meant that the production and behind the scenes effort to create the finished product is difficult, which is true. I compose classical but also write and produce "progressive rock" type music with my friend, and while clearly harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically simpler than classical, it IS very hard to master (in the music production sense of the word) and produce the finished thing. It is very tedious and difficult.

But in terms of music theory and form descriptors, the article is dead wrong.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nivmizzet said:


> No, it is in my opinion, very easy. also find it disgusting and pointless
> 
> I may as well copy and paste something I wrote somewhere else although some of it might be stupid since it was written on a non musical forum:
> 
> ...


Wow. You are a world of your own empirically arrived at opinions and seemingly made up history of music. Good luck with that.

ADD: You might want to give the following a good read-through, the first third at least is a good and fairly accurate history of music in prehistoric eras. The entire volume pretty engaging.
Chailly, Jacques: 40,000 Years of Music; Man in Search of Music. Translated by Rollo Myers with a Preface by Virgil Thomson.
http://www.abebooks.com/000-Years-Music-Man-Search-Music/539303589/bd


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Wow. You are a world of your own empirically arrived at opinions and seemingly made up history of music. Good luck with that.


Stay loose! I'm writing my own history of music and will publish it here in a bit. Lots of stuff people never knew, stuff that the "authorities" have suppressed. You'll be flabbergasted, trust me!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Stay loose! I'm writing my own history of music and will publish it here in a bit. Lots of stuff people never knew, stuff that the "authorities" have suppressed. You'll be flabbergasted, trust me!


Eagerly anticipating your book STOP 
High excitement anticipating being both flabbergasted and nonplussed STOP
Will be very hurt if not invited to signing party STOP


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

> Eagerly anticipating your book STOP
> High excitement anticipating being both flabbergasted and nonplussed STOP
> Will be very hurt if not invited to signing party STOP


Yes, me too. I can't wait! Looking forward to the critics reviews too.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Sonata said:


> This statement is without merit. Queensryche is a progressive metal band that had a masterpiece concept album entitled Operation Mindcrime, as well as a follow-up sequal concept album. They have in the past, and continue, to perform these conceptual creations live either seperately or combined.
> 
> There exist many tribute bands whose sole or primary purpose is to recreate, and keep living, the music of other rock or pop bands. There are Beatles tribute bands, Pink Floyd tribute bands. etc. Like or dislike them, I don't care, but they exist to continually keep alive the music of those aforementioned bands.


Oh, OK, well there exist a few obscure musical groups who sometimes perform 'their album'. But very few, surely. I was responding to the notion that 'concept albums' were great musical/artistic creations by pointing out they were never (OK, rarely) performed live, even by their 'composers'.
That's not the same as a cover band playing a few songs.

Here's a 35 minute playlist. Has it ever been performed live in concert?

"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" 
"With a Little Help from My Friends" 
"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" 
"Getting Better" 
"Fixing a Hole" 
"She's Leaving Home" 
"Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" 
"Within You Without You"
"When I'm Sixty-Four" 
"Lovely Rita" 
"Good Morning Good Morning" 
"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)" 
"A Day in the Life"

GG


----------

